Re: Mutt dependency on an MTA
Hi,
On Sat, 31 Jul, 1999 à 09:25:02AM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 30, 1999 at 08:25:25PM -0600, John Galt wrote:
> >
> > > This would be more of an arguement for a MTA being a priority:required
> > > rather than a Depends: on an Extra package. The other question that this
> >
> > There are a selection of MTAs. No given one of them is required, it's
> > just that you ought to have one installed.
>
> Yeah, you ought to have one installed, so why add a redundant dependency
> to a MUA? Because a you OUGHT to have a MTA with your MUA as well--not
> need, ought: I'm beating a dead horse, but we've only discovered one MUA
> that is completely useless without a MTA, mutt (and as far as I'm
> concerned, it's just about as useless WITH a MTA)
>
What's your point ? You seemed to be concerned by mutt but you now tell it's
useless : so, don't install it and you'll not be bothered by its dependancies.
> Policy also requires that a package be made universally useless without
> another package before it can be said to depend on it, and I've said it
> more times than I care to count: A MUA CAN WORK IN AT LEAST ONE CASE
> WITHOUT A LOCAL MTA--that of being used as a POP/IMAP client for a
> remote SMTP server, and that's all that's necessary to go from Depends: to
> Recommends: PERIOD.
>
How could you *send* mail with mutt *without* a MTA ?
> > > MTA is essential, but I'm doubting that it can be said to be a dependency
> > > of a MUA, more like a recommends:
> >
> > For MUAs which send mail by calling sendmail, it is pretty much a
> > dependancy.
>
> What if I'm using smail, qmail, or postfix--those are all valid MTAs for
> the dependency--but they won't get called when a fork goes out to sendmail
> (except smail, I believe it aliases sendmail to itself in installation),
> or are you going far afield and postulating a MUA that strictly depends on
> sendmail? If you're doing that, credibility is so strained at that point
> that we could use /bin/false to send mail--there's so many competing
> MTAs that your hypothetical MUA would be defined as broken at the plate.
>
What about the solution used in debian :
$ ls *mail -l
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Nov 11 1998 rmail -> exim
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Nov 11 1998 sendmail -> exim
I suppose that qmail, postfix and other use a similar trick.
--
( >- Laurent PICOULEAU -< )
/~\ lcrpic@a2points.com /~\
| \) Linux : mettez un pingouin dans votre ordinateur ! (/ |
\_|_ Seuls ceux qui ne l'utilisent pas en disent du mal. _|_/
Reply to: