Re: Mutt dependency on an MTA
* "Kaa" == Kaa <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Kaa> you don't know about it. My specific problem was solved by
Kaa> downloading equivs and installing a fake package for an MTA, but
Kaa> that looks and smells like a big kludge.
Actually, I do not think so. Creating a dummy MTA package is a very
clean (=fitting to the system) way to tell dpkg about locally
installed software. An alternative would be a plain text file.
Kaa> I feel that Debian should be easier to use with non-Debianised
Kaa> software, and in particular the packaging system should not
Kaa> assume that it knows everything about the particular machine.
It has to this is the only way, it can *assure*, that a package
installed can run. And this is one of the core functions of a package
Kaa> Especially in the case where the dependency is not on a very
Kaa> specific piece of code (as a library), but on a general class of
Kaa> service provider. I think that for dependencies on stuff like "a
Kaa> text editor", "an MTA", etc. the installation software should ask
Kaa> the admin/user if he has such a beast and believe him when he
Kaa> says yes.
a) this would produce more interactivity during the installation -
something to be avoided whenever possible.
b) it would annoy to answer the question on every update. So it has to
be saved in some file, also for frontend like dselect not to complain
about unfulfilled dependancies as well. So if you have to save this,
you can as well use a fake MTA package.
c) how does dpkg decide which dependancy it should ask about. The
criterias are quite moot. There are people, who compile some core libs
they use themself, So libfoo-bar has the same value for them as MTA
has for you.