Bug#488214: make mailx a registered virtual package name
On 19.08.2010 09:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi"<email@example.com> writes:
On 18.08.2010 23:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
Julien Cristau<firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Is there a spec somewhere about the command line arguments for mailx?
I know that bsd-mailx and heirloom-mailx do completely different
things for -a, e.g., which is a major pain, and I'm not sure they
should be alternatives.
mailx is specified by POSIX. POSIX does indeed not specify the -a flag.
(Out of curiosity, if one needs the -a flag to mailx, why not just call
sendmail directly and pass in exactly the headers one wants?)
To Russ: yes, mailx was mean to replace mail and sendmail (which is
difficult to standardize, and most of sendmail is outside POSIX scope).
Should we say explicitly in the virtual package listing that packages
providing mailx are only promising to implement the POSIX flags and you're
on your own for anything more than that?
Note: I was replying to your "out of curiosity".
To answer the original question:
I agree to make "mailx" a virtual package.
And I agree to specify that the mailx provides the
POSIX interfaces of mailx
NOTE: LSB 4.0 don't have any extra requirement on mailx.