[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#508644: mass bugfiling (against 8 packages) and/or new package default-mta

Steve Langasek wrote:

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:


But as this would hardcode exim4 as the default MTA for Debian in a number
of packages, some better solutions have been proposed in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/05/msg00381.html with the best choice appearantly being <87ve1faria.fsf@frosties.localdomain> which proposes that exim4 should provide default-mta, packages needing an MTA should depend on default-mta | mail-transfer-agent and the other MTAs should provide mail-transfer-agent. Then, if we want to change the default, we just need to touch two packages. 

I agree that this is the best solution.


As per policy I'd like to gather consensus on this before mass filing bugs.


Given that m-t-a is mentioned explicitly in policy, and that "default-mta"
will be a virtual package, I think this should be recorded in policy as well
- though if a clear consensus emerges on debian-devel, there's no need to go
through the policy process before filing bugs.

Also, I haven't seen the exim4 maintainers comment on this proposal until
now.  Obviously we would want to get that package to Provide: default-mta
before filing bugs on other packages.


Hmmm. I partially agree, but then we have an unnecessary exception:
such virtual packages must have only one "provider", or else there
will be problems (IIRC) on dpkg, apt or ddbuild, if such dependency
is declared as first dependency [1].

I would prefer to create a real empty package:
default-mta (maybe in a source package debian-defaults), which depends
on exim.

ciao
	cate


[1] policy 7.5 has only a note:
: If you want to specify which of a set of real packages should be the default to satisfy
: a particular dependency on a virtual package, you should list the real package as an
: alternative before the virtual one.

Probably we should be stricter.
Reply to: