Re: stupid questions about apt-get/dpkg
re,
Nathan E Norman(nnorman@micromuse.com)@Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 02:50:58AM -0600:
> > How do you simply replace a package with another package that offers the same functionality?
> > exim provides mail-transport-agent
> > qmail as well
> >
> > so I want to upgrade mail-transport-agent from exim to qmail
> >
> > What's the best way to do that? Pointers on a good apt-get/dpkg faq?
>
> You could install the qmail-src package, create the deb, and install
> it.
That's what I did, but it complained that it was conflicting with exim.
> Better yet, follow Adam McKenna's HOWTO at
> http://www.flounder.net/qmail/qmail-howto.html. Leave exim installed.
> Remove any start links for exim (find /etc/rc?.d -name S\*exim | xargs
> rm) and make sure exim isn't running out of /etc/inetd.conf. Comment
> out the crap /etc/cron.d/exim too.
:)
I would like to have it the right way though, as a real deb without any traces of exim...
> A zillion people will now bitch at you and claim that qmail is
> "non-free". While that's the debian party line I'm beginning to
> suspect debian holds this view because of the abrasive personal nature
> of Mr. Bernstein rather than a careful analysis of what's posted at
> his site. (Note to zealots: I'm not interested in your flames. Yell
> at your dog).
I don't give a shit if they complain, everyone is entitled to their opinion and that doesn't mean I'm going to listen to it ;)
I believe in qmail, have been running it for the last 3 to 4 years.
All software created by djb, well, the stuff I use anyway, has been good to me, not one problem that I couldn't solve or could blame someone else for, and _NO_ security issues whatsoever.
If I look back on my sendmail and bind days... argl :)
--
People using html in email should be shot.
Statisticians probably do it.
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
Reply to: