On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 11:21:41AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 10:52:50AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Peter Palfrader (weasel@debian.org) [040325 08:55]: > > > My favorite short term solution is to get sendmail fixed, option 2 > > > requires all MTA packages but sendmail/rmail be changed. What's your > > > opinion on that. > > > > I think it's definitly too late in the release process to force all > > MTAs to add an additional virtual package. > >... > Why? > There is not even an announced date for the beginning of the freeze and > the changes required for the MTAs are pretty simple. But there's no basis in policy for claiming this is an RC bug in the MTA currently, so it's not reasonable to demand that that all maintainers of packages providing mail-transport-agent address this before release, or to expect the release manager to delay a freeze because of it. (And given that reducing freeze time is a stated goal of testing, I don't think the lack of an announced freeze is all that useful in gauging our time to release.) If this really constitutes an RC problem for the uucp package (and some have suggested in this thread that it may not), a defensive strategy would be for the uucp maintainer to start things moving for an rmail virtual package, file bugs requesting the relevant packages to add Provides: rmail, NMU where necessary and feasible, and be prepared to list a number of package alternatives for sarge. Regardless, I don't think this bug is sufficient to claim that sendmail *must* continue to depend on rmail for sarge in order to support partial upgrades. AFAIK, the only package in the archive which depends on rmail's functionality is uucp, and it had an incorrect dependency in woody anyway, because Depends: m-t-a did not guarantee the presence of rmail then, either. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature