[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Should MUA only Recommend mail-transfer-agent?

#include <hallo.h>
* Steve Langasek [Wed, Aug 06 2003, 10:10:06AM]:

> You tell me.  Why is it so important to *prevent* the installation of an
> MTA on such a machine when installing mutt?
> 99% of our users are going to want to send outgoing mail from their
> mailreader.  A package that contains multiple binaries must depend on
> every library those binaries link against, even if a particular library
> is only needed by one seldom-used application to provide functionality
> that a small fraction of users would consider useful.  If that's a
> dependency, why would an MTA not be a dependency?  At the packaging

Hey, don't ask me but the OP. Apparently, there are following options:

 - do not depend on mail-transport-agent (but we agree that it normally
 - depend on mail-transport-agent in the MUA package; the only way for
   the mentioned small fraction is to use equivs and fake
   mail-transport-agengt which is not so wise solution because other
   packages depending on m-t-a may really need the sendmail command
 - depend on m-t-a and allow an alternative virtual package (my
   proposal) with m-t-a as the first alternative and the fake package as
   another alternative. This would allow MUAs (without need for
   sendmail) to be installed by such users but pull a real m-t-a for
   potential new users

So, I hope my last 0.02€.

Letzte Worte eines Zoowärters:
  "Der Löwe ist nicht hungrig."

Attachment: pgp1MVEwKBfy2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: