Re: make anacron a base package
"Steve Lamb" <morpheus@rpglink.com> writes:
> >> Exim is a drop-in replacement for sendmail.
>
> >So exim understands and will use my sendmail.mc, sendmail.cf,
> >mailertable, virtusertable, etc. files? That would be a neat trick,
> >especially since there are several things in those files that I use
> >which Exim doesn't support.
>
> Drop in replacement as in you can symlink exim to sendmail and none of
> the other programs would know the difference.
Except the programs on my other machines that rely on sendmail
capabilities that exim is unable to provide? That's not drop-in.
Drop-in means it provides all features, understands all configuration
files, and communicates in the same way as the previous one. For
instance, the X 3.3.3.1 binary tarballs on xfree86.org are drop-in
replacements for the 3.3.2.3 servers what we carry in that all I have
to do is untar, place somewhere, and everything I have set up already
will just work. This is not how exim works.
> >First of all, this is an invalid comparison because some could have
> >comments, others not.
>
> Gee, that is why he had grep not count lines that started with #.. IE,
> comments.
ok, so I missed the grep.
>
> >Secondly, few people edit their .cf files directly anymore. I for one have
> >never had to, despite very strange mail configurations.
>
> Not edit your configuration? Then how, oh how, do you configure it?
> Oh, wait, you're admitting that the Sendmail configuration is so esoteric
> that you are forced to use a macro language just to get anything done.
I fail to see what's wrong with using a macro language. For all
practical purposes, sendmail.mc *IS* the sendmail configuration.
Do you fault me for using a "macro language" (cpp) when writing C
programs? Or for using -- horrors -- a translator (gcc) instead of
editing machine language when writing large apps? Hopefully you would
realize that criticizing use of something like that is silly.
Similarly, it's silly to criticize sendmail simply because it uses one
particular way of doing things. You haven't said why using m4 makes
sendmail.mc inherently bad.
> >And these reasons are?
>
> You don't need a macro language just to attempt (stressed, ATTEMPT) to
> configure it to even work in the most basic of settings?
Again, what's the matter with a macro language if it's totally
invisible to the person configuring it, as it is with sendmail?
Reply to: