Re: "The Debian exim 4 packages suck badly" on exim-users@exim.org
On 18 Feb 2005 19:27:27 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>
wrote:
>So the many-small-files is perfect for a site like mine. Many changes
>aren't even changes that get noticed by dpkg, because they involve
>making new files to specify new router rules, for example. They just
>get automatically put into the generated config file. And by
>contrast, when nearly any change is made by the Debian package, it
>just automatically goes into the new version without the need for me
>to hand-edit the changes.
Another advantage of the multiple-file approach is that other packages
which need to receive e-mail (mailman, request-tracker, cabot for
example) could simply drop their transport/router combination into
/etc/exim4/conf.d and have them picked up by exim automatically. There
is currently no package doing this, but the possibility is there.
The disadvantage is that all packages dropping configuration bits into
/etc/exim4/conf.d need to coordinate a little bit, since exim does not
like configuration options being specified multiple times (having an
option twice is an error, instead of adding both values, or have a
first-served or a last-served approach). So, if exim4-config has
/etc/exim4/conf.d/routers/300_exim4-config_mailman specifying a router
called "mailman", and mailman suddenly starts bringing its own mailman
router in /etc/exim4/conf.d/routers/300_mailman_mailman, exim will
break because there are two mailman routers.
>Really big sites will have their own config files anyway, so nothing
>done by Debian matters much to them.
Really big sites will probably roll their own exim4-config package if
they bother to see what advantages that will bring to them.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Reply to: