Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
But as this would hardcode exim4 as the default MTA for Debian in a number
of packages, some better solutions have been proposed in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/05/msg00381.html with the best
choi
Hi Marc, hi Andreas,
On Freitag, 27. Februar 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Also, I haven't seen the exim4 maintainers comment on this proposal until
> now. Obviously we would want to get that package to Provide: default-mta
> before filing bugs on other packages.
Could you please take a look at
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
But as this would hardcode exim4 as the default MTA for Debian in a
number
of packages, some better solutions have been proposed in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/05/msg
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:51:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > But as this would hardcode exim4 as the default MTA for Debian in a number
> > of packages, some better solutions have been proposed in
> > http://lists.debian.org/de
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:32:51AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> BTW "mta" is IMHO wrong. In most of the cases (IIRC) programs needs
> only a "sendmail" program. Should we split the dependencies on real-mta and
> only on a sendmail provider.
>
> BTW we should
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:37:19AM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 11:51:39PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
> > > But as this would hardcode exim4 as the default MTA for Debian in a number
> > > of packages, som
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 ne
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:32:51AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> I would prefer to create a real empty package:
>> default-mta (maybe in a source package debian-defaults), which depends
>> on exim.
> BTW "mta" is IMHO wrong. In most of the cases (IIRC) programs needs
> only a "sendmail" p
Steve Langasek writes:
> In practice, we have the LSB definition of the interfaces that
> /usr/sbin/sendmail have to support; all but one of the MTA packages in
> Debian implement this interface (the odd duck is nullmailer, which
> Conflicts: lsb for this reason...)
>
> But perhaps that definitio
9 matches
Mail list logo
