Re: Questions regarding lsb-invalid-mta
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 05:54:19PM +0200, Aaron Sowry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm looking for some explanation regarding the lsb-invalid-mta package.
> I'm not quite sure where to start, although perhaps we can begin with an
> excerpt from the package description:
>
> "This package contains nothing else than a fake /usr/sbin/sendmail
> command to fulfill the LSB's requirement of providing this command
> without requiring an MTA to get installed"
>
> Huh? How does this "fulfill" anything? The requirement is that the
> sendmail command can be used to send mail, not just that some command
> called sendmail should exist, regardless of what it actually does (or
> does not do). Applications which are designed to run on LSB-compliant
> systems expect to be able to send mail using this interface, and if they
> can't, then the system is not LSB compliant. Trying to pretend that it
> is just makes things worse.
I don't agree necessarily. I think that the issue is what kind of
"compliance" you expect, binary compliance or merely "paper"
compliance. Expecting a binary to be there that fulfills the sendmail
ABI seems reasonable on the face of it. However, I can easily see a
system being "LSB compliant" without a MTA, in fact, I think that
might be a fairly common use case. So having a package that just tells
the lsb checker to be less verbose would be fairly useful in my humble
estimation.
Whether the LSB is still relevant is another discussion and perhaps
the more critical one.
Cheers,
Jeremiah
> I won't even get into the next paragraph of the package description - is
> there anyone who can explain the reasoning behind this approach?
>
> /Aaron
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lsb-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: [🔎] 1371657259.10600.18.camel@wotan.aeneby.se">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 1371657259.10600.18.camel@wotan.aeneby.se
>
Reply to: