Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:46:15AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>>> Given that m-t-a is mentioned explicitly in policy, and that "default-mta"
>>> will be a virtual package, I think this should be recorded in policy as well
>>> - though if a clear consensus emerges on debian-devel, there's no need to go
>>> through the policy process before filing bugs.
>
>> Hmmm. I partially agree, but then we have an unnecessary exception:
>> such virtual packages must have only one "provider", or else there
>> will be problems (IIRC) on dpkg, apt or ddbuild, if such dependency
>> is declared as first dependency [1].
>
>>From the definition of the virtual package in question, it should have only
> one provider at a time.
And this is an exception, which I want to avoid. So let try to work
around with "normal package". If we fail, I agree with the virtual package.
>> I would prefer to create a real empty package:
>> default-mta (maybe in a source package debian-defaults), which depends
>> on exim.
>
> This unavoidably couples Debian's choice of a default MTA for users who
> install the new release, to the behavior for users who are upgrading from a
> previous release, because users who have such a 'default-mta' package
> installed will find their MTA changed on dist-upgrade.
What about an other level of indirection:
package debian-mta: Depends: exim | mta-mail-transfer-agent
I think this case will solve upgrades, and changing easily the mta
(without causing a failed dependency).
ciao
cate
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
