Re: default MTA for sarge
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:06:37PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, David Nusinow wrote:
> [...]
> >> One issue I have with exim4 vs. exim3 is that the exim4 config file
> >> that is generated is not a conffile. Thus, with exim4, we're seeing
> >> more of the managed configurations (see also XFree86 and tetex).
>
> Hello,
> Exim4 is better because all the parts have dpkg-conffile(-like)
> handling. Only the the result of
> find | xargs cat | sed -e 's/$MAGIC/debconfvalue/' is in /var. Be
> aware that we do not use debconf as black-magic db, but only to
> properly manage a small sh-style configfile.
Ok, that's fair. I'm sorry I missed that distinction.
> I do not know whether splitting was a good idea, personally I like it,
> the alternative was a template-file (basically the result of
> find /etc/exim4/conf.d/ | xargs cat ) in /etc/ and up-ex4.conf would
> just do the sed -e 's/$MAGIC/debconfvalue/'
I wouldn't say the splitting was a bad idea, but I think it makes it
initially hard on the user, while possibly making it easier on them as
they become more advanced. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if many
users do like David Harris and take the autogenerated /var/lib config
file, move it to /etc/exim4/exim4.conf, and promptly ignore conf.d
forever. I was definitely tempted to do this myself, but decided to try
and work with the package as it was put together.
I personally don't have any issues with the packaging itself. I just
want to compare things for the user who would most benefit from a
default MTA. I think postfix lends itself slightly more to the newbie,
because the default config file for exim4 throws in everything (my
generated one is 296 lines, comments stripped) while postfix's main.cf
is under 40 lines. Granted, postfix has a few other files (master.cf
is 30 lines, with commments stripped, for instance) but it's still less
files than in /etc/exim4/conf.d. Of course, by that standard of
measure, nullmailer beats them both, and with some better documentation
I'd personally be fine with it as the default.
> I still think this (small sh-style configfile + script +
> template-file) is a sound method for debconfizing "unparseable"
> files, the only two alternatives I can think of are worse:
> * Manage file with debconf (and loose all user changes done to the
> file with $editor on every upgrade) [x] Yes [x] No
> * Don't make the template file user-visible. On upgrades or
> dpkg-reconfigure generate a new finished file (merging
> template+debconf) and put the result under ucf's control.
I agree, it is a much better solution to unparsable config files than
full management.
- David Nusinow
Reply to: