Re: Questions regarding lsb-invalid-mta
On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 22:40 -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Sort of. Strictly speaking, a "mail transport agent" is an agent which
> transports mail. So as long as mail coming into the system gets
> transported, whether the MTA is a full-featured system like Sendmail or
> something a lot simpler.
>
> At least, that's the Debian perspective (and one which I agree with).
Yep, sounds reasonable to me.
> > 1) Install the entire MTA, but leave the server component unconfigured
> > (assuming this is even possible). Enabling the server component later
> > could be done using dpkg-reconfigure.
>
> This is possible. The exim4-daemon-light package, for example, takes
> heroic steps to do the right thing in as many situations as possible
> without any end-user configuration, which is why it's the default.
But is it heroic enough to be able to determine whether the user wants a
full MTA, or just /usr/sbin/sendmail to satisfy LSB requirements? How
could it differentiate these two cases?
Assume for a moment that we nuke lsb-invalid-mta, and make
exim4-daemon-light a dependency of lsb-core. Is it smart enough to
figure out that it doesn't need to configure the daemon based on the
fact that it was installed as a dependency of lsb-core? I guess we still
want the following to happen:
- If either exim4 or exim4-daemon-light are installed explicitly, then
we want the daemon to be configured
- If exim4 or exim4-daemon-light are installed explicitly *after*
lsb-core, we want to dpkg-reconfigure exim4-daemon-light
Or perhaps it would be better to have a separate meta-package which
doesn't configure the daemon? AFAICT installing exim4-daemon-heavy
either before or after lsb-core in this scenario should take care of
itself.
Reply to: