On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 12:58:23 -0500, Branden Robinson
wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 9, 2024, 12:43 Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-10-09 at 10:26 +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>> > On Mon Oct 7, 2024 at 8:58 AM BST, Marc Haber wrote:
>> > > P.S.: Isnt it abou
Processing control commands:
> reopen -1
Bug #872812 {Done: m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri)} [general] exim4-config: Exim
configuration error in line 684 of /var/lib/exim4/config.autogenerated.tmp
Bug reopened
Ignoring request to alter fixed versions of bug #872812 to the same values
pr
control: reopen -1
control: reassign -1 jenkins.debian.org
thanks
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:27:12PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Not a bug:
not true, see above.
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=844220#65
thanks for the pointer!
--
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
D
Your message dated Mon, 21 Aug 2017 23:27:12 +0200
with message-id <20170821212712.hzgfd4f2o5cxm...@bongo.bofh.it>
and subject line Re: Bug#872812: exim4-config: Exim configuration error in line
684 of /var/lib/exim4/config.autogenerated.tmp
has caused the Debian Bug report #872812,
reg
Package: general
Severity: serious
Hi,
I seem to recall that there was a change causing the following (which is due to
"user mail not found") but I'm unable to remember which package was that…
So I'm seeing this in various jenkins tests testing package installations:
Set
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> unblock 542872 by 508644
Bug #542872 [at] Please Recommend default-mta | m-t-a, not exim4 | m-t-a
Was blocked by: 508644
Removed blocking bug(s) of 542872: 508644
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assi
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
> block 542872 by 508644
Bug #542872 [at] Please Recommend default-mta | m-t-a, not exim4 | m-t-a
Was not blocked by any bugs.
Added blocking bug(s) of 542872: 508644
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assi
On 2009-03-08 Alban browaeys wrote:
> >From \amethyst on freenode #bash (Neil Moore) :
> <\amethyst> it is a bug I think
> <\amethyst> that you still get the error even with $...@-foo}
> <\amethyst> but $...@+"$@"} probably shouldn't error out
> <\amethyst> since ${foo+bar} does not
> <\amethys
clone 518752 -1
reassign -1 bash
found -1 4.0-1
retitle -1 set -u should not error on "${@:+}" if there are no args
thanks
On 2009-03-08 Alban browaeys wrote:
> >From \amethyst on freenode #bash (Neil Moore) :
> <\amethyst> it is a bug I think
> <\amethyst> that you still get the error even with
On 2009-03-08 jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
> Package: exim4-config
> Version: 4.69-9
> Severity: important
> File: /usr/sbin/update-exim4.conf
> starting with bash version 4.0-1:
> /var/log/boot:Sun Mar 8 19:13:03 2009: Starting
> MTA:/usr/sbin/update-exim4.conf: line 38:
Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (20/10/2008):
> Unfortunately, I do not manage to understand why exim4 was not chosen:
#474999.
Mraw,
KiBi.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi all,
on a minimal Lenny system, I wanted to install cowbuilder and ended up
with a very surprising debconf question about citadel-server. "aptitude
why" explains that it was pulled by cron:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ aptitude why citadel-server
i cronRecommends exim4 | post
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Personally, what made me stick to Exim so far is the ability to
> >> configure retry behavior on a per-domain basis. One of my mail servers
> >
> > Postfix does that too. You direct the domains to a dif
* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Personally, what made me stick to Exim so far is the ability to
>> configure retry behavior on a per-domain basis. One of my mail servers
>
> Postfix does that too. You direct the domains to a different transport, and
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Personally, what made me stick to Exim so far is the ability to
> configure retry behavior on a per-domain basis. One of my mail servers
Postfix does that too. You direct the domains to a different transport, and
setup that transport with whichever pa
pical use?!?
"/usr/sbin/exim4 -bt" or even "/usr/sbin/exim4 -d+all -bt" can be a real
lifesaver if need to figure out what's going on. Older versions of
Postfix lacked -bt support (I just had a brief encounter with 2.0 on a
customer machine *shivers*), partly due to its non-monol
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 03:41:20PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Postfix has a reputation for being faster and more secure than exim.
When talking about security, exim doesn't exactly have a horribly bad
track record. It's not qmail, but then I wouldn't *want* to use qmail
for other reasons.
> Why
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007, Miles Bader wrote:
> Why is it worth worrying about, though? Are the difference between exim
> and postfix really great enough to matter for typical use?!?
No, they are not. And I speak this as a Postfix user (I replace exim with
postfix in every box I use or admin, and all
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For me, exim4 is better:
> * less memory on run time
> * mailname is implimented as expected by the policy.
Postfix has a reputation for being faster and more secure than exim.
Why is it worth worrying about, though? Are the difference b
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:44:51 +0900, Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Just to be sure... I am running postfix now just to find out the same
> questions you have...
> I see no practical reason to run postfix on desktop machine now except
> if postfix is something you are very familiar with.
* MJ Ray:
>> I believe http://www.postfix.org/ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README.html
>> details the facility you're looking for.
>
> I don't believe it does. I don't want to verify the recipient address
> - I want to try delivering the redirected mail and avoid being left
> holding the baby if the dest
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 00:31:17 +
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the pointers. Can a policy server delay an incoming mail?
> I suspect that sleeping in the perl would delay all incoming mail and
> there's no access(5) response like Exim's delay, else I could do it
> another way.
Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> Still, if not...well, I wrote an event-driven postfix policy daemon in
> perl using POE that's able to handle > 100 queries/second on consumer
> hardware in a few dozen lines of code.
Thanks for the pointers. Can a policy server delay an inco
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> After seeing recent post(*) on the default MTA issue, I did some
> research and experiment on MTAs. They are summarized at:
> http://wiki.debian.org/DefaultMTA
Although I am identified as running Postfix there, that was installed
as a test a while ago. Mo
package
everything without debhelper seems to be running sendmail on his desktop
machine. I am not taking this data to say we should follow him. This
data was meant to give some objective status view.
Just because popcon says exim4 is the one everyone running, it is not
the whole truth. That is the
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Instead of removing data on you, it may be interesting to edit the
> following text to provide information on you and also add section on why
> you think exim is better as note on wiki.
> > > http://wiki.debian.org/DefaultMTA
There is no link to edit that p
> 1. it doesn't seem to have as many anti-spam possibilities as Exim -
> there's postgrey for greylisting, but how can I tarpit RBL matches and
> other offences?
Look at policyd-weight, for example.
>
> 2. when an email that I'm forwarding (due to /etc/aliases or a
> .forward or whatever) comes
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:36:06 +
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. it doesn't seem to have as many anti-spam possibilities as Exim -
> there's postgrey for greylisting, but how can I tarpit RBL matches and
> other offences?
A quick 'apt-cache search postfix' lists a number of different pol
Hi,
After seeing recent post(*) on the default MTA issue, I did some
research and experiment on MTAs. They are summarized at:
http://wiki.debian.org/DefaultMTA
Also good review was found at: http://shearer.org/MTA_Comparison
Although both exim4 and postfix daemons are negligibly small ones
@begin note to debian developers
dear debian developers: would someone _please_ explain to marc that,
as exim4 is the default mailer for debian, that he is in quite a
serious position of responsibility, and that exim4 needs to cater for
_everybody_'s needs, with the minimum amount of disru
On Thu, Nov 09, 2006 at 08:14:23PM -0800, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Reportbug installs who do not have exim installed correctly should be
> >using reportbug's built-in SMTP handling abilities and either relaying
> >to their upstream smtp serv
On 11/10/06, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> A default Etch install has Exim configured for local mail only. So
> reportbug mails will end up frozen in a queue somewhere, without any
> direct warning to the user.
Reportbug installs who do
age over 400 for a while, 25% idle time, 50% wait. The
only unusuall thing running was many exim4 and procmail processes
starting and completing quickly. My guess is spammers tried sending
so much spam at once that nothing got through.
--
Blars Blarson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> A default Etch install has Exim configured for local mail only. So
> reportbug mails will end up frozen in a queue somewhere, without any
> direct warning to the user.
Reportbug installs who do not have exim installed correctly should be
using report
hi olof,
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 13:47 +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Hi debian devel subscribers,
>
> A default Etch install has Exim configured for local mail only.
> So reportbug mails will end up frozen in a queue somewhere, without
> any direct warning to the user.
>
> I think this is not
it?
Please CC me.
Greetings,
Olaf
On 11/9/06, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tags #397646 wontfix
user [EMAIL PROTECTED]
usertags #39646 i-dont-like-the-default-config
thanks
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 08:02:58PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Since exim4 is configured for l
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 12:45:09PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:30:52 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >So have a note in exim4's debconf which tells the users that, and only
> >display the note if DEBCONF_RECONFIGURE=1 or $1=&#x
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:05:07 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>In that case, where the problem is that people do *not* read these
>>files, and "dpkg-reconfigure exim4" exits silently withou
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:05:07 +0200, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In that case, where the problem is that people do *not* read these
>files, and "dpkg-reconfigure exim4" exits silently without doing
>anything, it seems to be ideal.
Explain tha
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:30:52 -0700, Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>So have a note in exim4's debconf which tells the users that, and only
>display the note if DEBCONF_RECONFIGURE=1 or $1='reconfigure'.
That is what I did for the exim4 package uploaded
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:44:57 +0200, Reinhard Tartler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If we cannot expect that, perhaps we should advertise the existance of
>those README.Debian files better.
I would be interested in how exim4 can advertise its README.Debian any
better, short paying for go
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> My point is that `dpkg-reconfigure exim4` is what users seem to
> expect to work (without reading documentation). Therefore I
> suggested adding some additional information at the point that
> doesn't behave to what users expect. I d
ole frontends, dissapears off of
> the screen rapidly, etc.
>
> Using echo to inform the user of things is really not ideal.
> README.Debian, NEWS.Debian, and low priority debconf notes when
> appropriate are much, much better.
In that case, where the problem is that people do *not*
ole frontends, dissapears off of
> the screen rapidly, etc.
>
> Using echo to inform the user of things is really not ideal.
> README.Debian, NEWS.Debian, and low priority debconf notes when
> appropriate are much, much better.
And this is exactly the point: ppl just do 'dpkg-reconf
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Cons: Untranslated message
> Pros: less annoying by not interrupting installs and upgrades, easy to
> implement
Cons: Can't be easily seen in non-console frontends, dissapears off of
the screen rapidly, etc.
Using echo to inform the user of thi
Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> sean finney wrote:
>> funny, i'd have said the ultimate solution was finding a way to make the
>> users learn about looking at README.Debian :)
>>
> I think users can be forgiven not reading every README.Debian in
> packages which are installed by defau
sean finney wrote:
funny, i'd have said the ultimate solution was finding a way to make the
users learn about looking at README.Debian :)
I think users can be forgiven not reading every README.Debian in
packages which are installed by default.
--
Jon Dowland
http://alcopop.org/
--
To UNSU
Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> "how to reconfigure exim4" is one of the most frequently asked
> questions on #debian.
How about a simple 'echo' when reconfiguring?
When upgrading/installing the exim packages, users most probably won
sswords, firewall rules, backups, and what services to export. We
should not demand that he pay close attention to all 1900 packages.
Or even the "important" ones.
I think that if we can figure out how to get
dpkg-reconfigure exim4
to actually configure exim4, then we should.
e magically knew that
> >> > when configuring exim4, it must actually configure exim4-config.
> >
> >funny, i'd have said the ultimate solution was finding a way to make the
> >users learn about looking at README.Debian :)
>
> That is unrealistic. I expe
On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 09:23:48 +0200, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 09:08 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>> >The ultimate solution would be it dpkg-reconfigure magically knew that when
>> >configuring exim4, it must actually configure exim4-conf
hey marc,
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 09:08 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> >The ultimate solution would be it dpkg-reconfigure magically knew that when
> >configuring exim4, it must actually configure exim4-config.
funny, i'd have said the ultimate solution was finding a way to make the
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:22:05 +0200, Hendrik Sattler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Am Sonntag 08 Oktober 2006 22:58 schrieb James Westby:
>> The default level when doing dpkg-reconfigure is low, so that it wont be
>> seen on installation, but if the user tries to reconfigure
On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 22:47:44 +0200, Hendrik Sattler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>/usr/share/doc/exim4/README.Debian.gz:
That is one of the most ignored files on any Debian system.
Users are so incredibly stupid!
Did you miss that exim4 is my package, and that you are pointing m
On Sun, Oct 08, 2006 at 11:22:05PM +0200, Hendrik Sattler wrote:
> Am Sonntag 08 Oktober 2006 22:58 schrieb James Westby:
> > The default level when doing dpkg-reconfigure is low, so that it wont be
> > seen on installation, but if the user tries to reconfigure exim4 they
> >
Am Sonntag 08 Oktober 2006 22:58 schrieb James Westby:
> The default level when doing dpkg-reconfigure is low, so that it wont be
> seen on installation, but if the user tries to reconfigure exim4 they
> will be directed to the correct package.
The ultimate solution would be it dpkg-re
On (08/10/06 22:35), Frans Pop wrote:
> On Sunday 08 October 2006 22:26, Marc Haber wrote:
> > I'd now like a low priority debconf note in exim4, exim4-base and the
> > daemon packages which is only shown if the package is to be
> > _re_configured, and tells people to dpk
Am Sonntag 08 Oktober 2006 22:26 schrieb Marc Haber:
> "how to reconfigure exim4" is one of the most frequently asked
> questions on #debian.
>
> The reason is that dpkg-reconfigure exim4 is a no-op since exim4 is a
> metapackage pulling in the "real" package
On Sunday 08 October 2006 22:26, Marc Haber wrote:
> I'd now like a low priority debconf note in exim4, exim4-base and the
> daemon packages which is only shown if the package is to be
> _re_configured, and tells people to dpkg-reconfigure exim4-config.
A _low_ priority note pro
Hi,
"how to reconfigure exim4" is one of the most frequently asked
questions on #debian.
The reason is that dpkg-reconfigure exim4 is a no-op since exim4 is a
metapackage pulling in the "real" packages exim4, exim4-base,
exim4-daemon-light/heavy/custom. The correct command
On Jul 06, Alexander Vlasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But I have some objections:
> 1) first reason is not true anymore. Since
> 2004 SPF has a lot of testing;
Which showed well that it is a bad idea.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Alexander Vlasov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> AFAIK, debian maintainers are volunteers and they became maintainers to
> make Debian better. What the reason for maintainer to _reject_
> improvements?
Another reason is this one:
# Compiling Exim with experimental features. These are documented
Le jeudi 06 juillet 2006 à 18:03 +0300, Alexander Vlasov a écrit :
> b) default exim with spf and lot of people just enabling it in config
> (rest of exim users wouldn't notice the difference)
> ?
>
> AFAIK, debian maintainers are volunteers and they became maintainers to
> make Debian better. Wha
Hello.
Well, rebuilding a package is not a problem;
I already have about ~ 70 packages rebuilt for various reasons; It's not
a problem to add another one.
But I'm trying to make things as comfortable as possible for all.
What is better:
a) default exim w/o spf and lot of people using local instal
Take matters into your own hands. :)
The following is what I used to do to run exim4 4.50 with SPF checking.
I think that the same broad steps will also apply to more recent versions
of the package.
# apt-get install build-essential libspf2-dev fakeroot
# apt-get build-dep exim4
$ apt-get
Hello.
I filed a wishlist[1] on exim4 package asking to enable SPF[2] in
exim4-daemon-heavy package, but maintainer rejected it and recommended
me discuss this situation on debian-devel@, so I beg to ask your
attention.
Currently, debian ships two versions of exim4 -- light with absolutely
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 03:17:41PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On 4/19/06, Daniel Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At the very least, could you please reopen bug #325971 so that people
> > can find out what's wrong with their server.
>
> AIUI, anybody can reopen a bug report.
>
T
On 4/19/06, Daniel Hermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the very least, could you please reopen bug #325971 so that people
> can find out what's wrong with their server.
AIUI, anybody can reopen a bug report. It's not considered nice if the
maintainer disagrees, but as a rule, for a real bug yo
the bug or
(even better) to fix it for the next Sarge update, since this bug
renders the package essentially unusable for production environments
(e.g. exim4 connecting to LDAP over SSL, or libnss-ldap, see bug report).
I didn't get any response yet, nor has been any activity there to fix
th
* Martin Zobel-Helas [Sun, 05 Mar 2006 16:53:05 +0100]:
Hi Martin,
> On Sunday, 05 Mar 2006, aba wrote:
> > The plan is to make s-p-u such a place, but until it happens, I think
> > volatile can have such packages as an exception, if the bug is severe
> > enough.
> sorry, but i disagree with you
sorry, but i disagree with you on that. For me volatile is handling
packages with volatile data, not for handling packages the stable
release manager denys to take into a stable release.
I've not followed this bug but AIUI SRM has approved the package for the
next point release.
If the bug i
Hi Andi,
On Sunday, 05 Mar 2006, you wrote:
> The plan is to make s-p-u such a place, but until it happens, I think
> volatile can have such packages as an exception, if the bug is severe
> enough.
sorry, but i disagree with you on that. For me volatile is handling
packages with volatile data, no
right now.
>
> Right, I've always thought it'd be useful to have a place to make
> _accepted_ s-p-u uploads available (read: those that'll be in the next
> stable point release fore sure). Currently s-p-u is not that place,
> nor is debian-volatile as per its de
ave a place to make
_accepted_ s-p-u uploads available (read: those that'll be in the next
stable point release fore sure). Currently s-p-u is not that place,
nor is debian-volatile as per its definition, but _maybe_ the exim4
issue is important enough as to make the volatile archive admins
e better spelled out so
> as to make things more clear). Additionally, exim4 packages are already
> available in s-p-u, so I don't see a pressing reason to make them
> available in another repository.
>
> I am willing to be convinced I am wrong here, but at first blush I don't
> se
...
I am sorry to say, but I have to agree with zobel here. The changes
aren't exactly what I think of when I think of the voltile archive
mandate (although again, perhaps that needs to be better spelled out so
as to make things more clear). Additionally, exim4 packages are already
available
d
> | only contain changes to stable programs that are necessary to keep
> | them functional;
> the new version contains exactly one changeset. This changeset is
> necessary to keep exim4 operational towards hosts having ipv4 and ipv6
> records. As more and more hosts get ipv6
mail hosting with exim4, php, mysql - closes #348846
virtual mail hosting based on php and mysql for exim4
vexim is a virtual mail hosting system based on php and mysql backend
for the exim4 MTA. It also includes ability to manage spamassassin and clamav
integration and configuration management. s
Quoting Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> shadow 1:4.0.12-1
>
> was the first version to introduce the change;
> and apparently it didn't enter testing until recently
> since it had a few bugs.
Yep, that one slightly broke adduser in environments without shadow
passwords.
Marc had to fix
Hi,
> >
> >http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/pbuilder/testsuite/cdebootstrap/pbuilder-create-etch.log?cvsroot=pbuilder
>
> I do not have a clue about pbuilder, but adduser's support of
> shadow-less systems was first broken in 3.64 by the fix for bug
> 298883.
Due to cdebootstrap b
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 11:56:01 +0900, Junichi Uekawa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You can check it out, but the last successful testsuite that I ran
>and committed to CVS is 4 Oct 2005; which is not months.
>
>http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/pbuilder/testsuite/cdebootstrap/pbuilder-cre
Hi,
> >O: Setting up exim4-config (4.52-2) ...
> >P: Configuring package exim4-config
> >O: hostname:
> >O: Host name lookup failure
> >O:
> >O: hostname:
> >O: Host name lookup failure
> >O:
> >O: Adding system-user for exim (v4)
>
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 12:55:47 +0900, Junichi Uekawa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From since about yesterday, on my amd64 box,
>etch(testing) is failing to bootstrap with the following message:
>
>O: Setting up exim4-config (4.52-2) ...
>P: Configuring package exim4-config
&
Hi,
From since about yesterday, on my amd64 box,
etch(testing) is failing to bootstrap with the following message:
O: Setting up exim4-config (4.52-2) ...
P: Configuring package exim4-config
O: hostname:
O: Host name lookup failure
O:
O: hostname:
O: Host name lookup failure
O:
O: Adding system
Hi,
exim4 4.44-1 has been uploaded to experimental. This is the first
package version of exim4 to be linked against db4.2, which is a good
thing for d-i.
The exim4 maintainers consider to upload this package for sid and
sarge. For this to happen, we need testing.
I would like to invite all
Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> By popular demand I've built testpackages of exim4 linked against
>> db4.2.
[...]
> Any special reason why you didn't use db4.3 instead of db4.2?
I want to get this into sarge, db4.3 is
* Andreas Metzler wrote:
> By popular demand I've built testpackages of exim4 linked against
> db4.2. - The packages work for me(TM) but I am not doing any
> db-acrobatics with exim4 (like reading the list of local-parts from
> cyrus-imapd's internal database). I'd app
Hello,
By popular demand I've built testpackages of exim4 linked against
db4.2. - The packages work for me(TM) but I am not doing any
db-acrobatics with exim4 (like reading the list of local-parts from
cyrus-imapd's internal database). I'd appreciate some testing before I
upload to
Le dim 2005-01-09 a 04:12:39 -0500, Marc Haber a dit:
> Hi,
>
> exim4 4.43-2 has been uploaded to experimental. The exim4 maintainers
> consider to upload this package for sid and sarge. For this to happen,
> we need testing.
>
> I would like to invite all readers to test
Hi,
exim4 4.43-2 has been uploaded to experimental. The exim4 maintainers
consider to upload this package for sid and sarge. For this to happen,
we need testing.
I would like to invite all readers to test exim4 4.43, which can be
downloaded from the experimental distribution. My machines are
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 09:53:11PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >So, why can't this be done without an exim4-config package in Debian, with
> >something like the following arrangement:
> > exim4-daemon
> > provides/conflicts: mail-transport-a
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 03:29:31 +1000, Anthony Towns
wrote:
>So, why can't this be done without an exim4-config package in Debian, with
>something like the following arrangement:
>
> exim4-daemon
> provides/conflicts: mail-transport-agent
>
On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 10:09:04AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> For example, the place I work has a package exim4-config-ilkserver
> based on exim4-config-medium. That package installs without debconf
> questions and contains a configuration that is suitable to our
> non-main serv
e" as usually is the
default elsewhere in Debian (and "configuration" here is of course the
complete configuration as used by Exim, not the individual files in
conf.d/), short of ignoring the Debian-provided default configuration
entirely, by using /e/e/exim4.conf or setting con
Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:46:30PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:43:39 +1000, Anthony Towns
>> wrote:
>>> The one that gets installed later, Pre-Deps the one that gets installed
>>> earlier. exim4-daemon Pre-Depends: e
exactly?
>> Allowing for different configuration mechanismn. And I (as a user of
>> exim4) like that very much.
>
>There are plenty of things that could be described that way that don't
>involve having separate packages. There's a reason the word "exactly"
>app
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 10:34:45AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > Seriously, I think you need to reconsider having the configuration in
> > a separate package.
> > What're you trying to achieve exactly?
> Allowing for different configuration mechanismn. And I (as a user
* Tore Anderson
| * Marc Haber
|
| > The way -config does the configuration is something that is questioned
| > by a lot of people. Most conservative eximists hate the configuration
| > being split out in several files,
|
| Absolutely, this is a slight convenience for the packagers which c
* Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au) [031206 08:10]:
> On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 05:46:30PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:43:39 +1000, Anthony Towns
> > wrote:
> > >The one that gets installed later, Pre-Deps the one that gets installed
> &
On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 22:22:07 +0100, Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> * Marc Haber
>> Splitting up the config file in small files was necessary to do
>> debconf support, which is a Debian requirement.
> Debconf support is now required? I'm flabbergasted. Could you
> please point me
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
