Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 02:10:39AM +0200, Eugeniy Meshcheryakov wrote:
>> 15 ÑÑÐ°Ð²Ð½Ñ 2008 о 16:24 -0700 Steve Langasek напиÑав(-ла):
>> > > What concerns me about this approach is that it could easilly end up
>> > > with
>> > > dist-upgrades swapping out users mail systems without warning. I would
>> > > consider such behaviour unacceptable as it could easilly cause mail loss
>
>> > Er, no, that wouldn't happen. As long as packages correctly depend on
>> > default-mta | mail-transport-agent, this will have no impact on upgrades.
>
>> This can happen if user has 'default-mta' package installed, and it
>> changes (if it is done like with 'gcc' package now).
>
> Ah, ok. Yes, that's a possibility; I was only considering the case that a
> user had an MTA installed that was not the default.
>
> So the best option here does seem after all to get apt to look at package
> priorities when satisfying virtual packages.
Package exim4:
Provides: default-mta
Package: foo
Depends: default-mta | mail-transport-agent
This should be enough to single out one MTA as the one to be installed
if in doubt and should not cause a change in who provides default-mta
to suddenly install a different mta.
Any reasons against that?
MfG
Goswin
PS: This is not to say apt shouldn't also be fixed to look at
priorities but that is a longer process.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
