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 -< ) /~\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /~\ | \) Linux : mettez un pingouin dans votre ordinateur ! (/ | \_|_ Seuls ceux qui ne l'utilisent pas en disent du mal. _|_/
