Re: Questions regarding lsb-invalid-mta
On 06/24/2013 05:01 AM, Aaron Sowry wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-06-23 at 22:40 -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
>> 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?
I think the idea is that the "full MTA experience" is
exim4-daemon-heavy, while exim4-daemon-light is the "just enough MTA"
experience.
> 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.
I think these cases are already handled by exim4-daemon-light, since
it's installed automatically in nearly all cases by debian-installer.
All we need to do is...
Depends: default-mta | mail-transport-agent
...and the right thing happens.
(The "default-mta" package is provided by exim4-daemon-light.)
Reply to: