Bug#488214: make mailx a registered virtual package name
On 18.08.2010 23:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
Julien Cristau<email@example.com> writes:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:31:59 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
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
mailx is specified by POSIX. POSIX does indeed not specify the -a flag.
(Out of curiosity, if one needs the -a flag to mailx, why not just call
sendmail directly and pass in exactly the headers one wants?)
What -a does?
Searching on google: two man page don't describe it,
and one as "add attachment" and one as "add header".
So I think portable scripts should not use -a
To Russ: yes, mailx was mean to replace mail and sendmail
(which is difficult to standardize, and most of sendmail
is outside POSIX scope).