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

Bug#488214: make mailx a registered virtual package name

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:31:59 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> > Piotr Kaczuba <pepe@attika.ath.cx> writes:
> >> Before 1.2.65 logcheck depended on mailx, which was and still is
> >> provided by both mailutils and bsd-mailx. Now that logcheck depends
> >> explicitly on bsd-mailx, you can't have installed both logcheck and
> >> mailutils because mailutils and bsd-mailx exclude each other.
> > mailx is not a registered virtual package name in Policy.  It sounds like
> > it should be?  If unrelated packages should know about it for
> > dependencies, I don't think it meets the "private use among coordinated
> > packages" exception.
> I propose the following addition.  Seconds or objections?  (As mentioned
> elsewhere in the file, the * indicates that the providing packages are
> using alternatives, which appears to be the case.)
Is there a spec somewhere about the command line arguments for mailx?  I
know that bsd-mailx and heirloom-mailx do completely different things
for -a, e.g., which is a major pain, and I'm not sure they should be


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: