Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Zac Medico wrote:
> > Yep, that's probably it. I ran into this a while back. Unfortunately
> > equery is unreasonably slow with such queries. The fastest way I've
> > found: find /var/db/pkg -path '*DEPEND' | xargs grep virtual/mta
> qpkg is orders of magnitude faster than
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:31:21 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> Yep, that's probably it. I ran into this a while back. Unfortunately
> equery is unreasonably slow with such queries. The fastest way I've
> found: find /var/db/pkg -path '*DEPEND' | xargs grep virtual/mta
qpkg is orders of magnitude fast
Yeah, that's what it is.
On 6/13/05, Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:17:11 -0400, Mark Shields wrote:
>
> > Ah yes, I remember reading it's not a full-fledged MTA. I was just
> > curious as to why it was trying to install. And to answer the first
> > reply's qu
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:17:11 -0400, Mark Shields wrote:
>
>
>>Ah yes, I remember reading it's not a full-fledged MTA. I was just
>>curious as to why it was trying to install. And to answer the first
>>reply's question: "The question I have is why would you want to remove
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:17:11 -0400, Mark Shields wrote:
> Ah yes, I remember reading it's not a full-fledged MTA. I was just
> curious as to why it was trying to install. And to answer the first
> reply's question: "The question I have is why would you want to remove
> all MTAs?". Why have some
My reason,
Disk space is too cheap to waste time keeping a small tiny place-holder
MTA inactive... The fact you and others have emailed about this has
already not been worth the cost in disk space... ;)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Mark Shields wrote:
A. Khattri,
Ah yes, I remember reading it's no
A. Khattri,
Ah yes, I remember reading it's not a full-fledged MTA. I was just
curious as to why it was trying to install. And to answer the first
reply's question: "The question I have is why would you want to remove
all MTAs?". Why have something on your system when you don't use it?
This is
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Mark Shields wrote:
> Trying to remove any MTAs from my system, so I did an emerge -C ssmtp,
> which unmerged it just fine.
Its a virtual dependency.
ssmtp is not really an MTA, but a wrapper for a script that emulates
sendmail. Its harmless and uses very little space so you
> Trying to remove any MTAs from my system...
Normal unix OS's require an MTA to be defined. Portage has virtual mta
placeholders that define the MTA that is installed on the system (i.e. I'm
using postfix).
If you don't have an MTA installed (which you don't), portage knows that the
MTA is mis
> I assume either xterm or utempter is requiring ssmtp, but I don't
> understand why. Any ideas?
Looking at the ebuilds themselves, neither ebuild has a dependency
upon ssmtp or an other mta.
Matt
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Trying to remove any MTAs from my system, so I did an emerge -C ssmtp,
which unmerged it just fine. But, doing a emerge -DNtpvu world
returns:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ sudo emerge -DNtpvu world
These are the packages that I would merge, in reverse order:
Calculating world dependencies ...done!
[no
11 matches
Mail list logo
