On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:32:20AM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 12:38:11AM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote: > > * For each such criticism, what your opinion of it is and what > > if anything you plan to do about it.
> (3) How the suggested packages handle the 'newaliases' program > (Steve) > My opinion on > (3) I was of the opinion that a dependency chain to a packages that > provides the newliases program is enough to conform with the Debian > policy, and, since Recommends are install by default, recommending the > fastforward package is sufficient, while preserving flexibility. I now > see that on systems where exim is installed as default MTA, installing > the fastforward package will result in a file conflict. The packages > should be adapted, so that the qmail-run package provides the newaliases > program. Actually, with the first set of packages uploaded to ftp-master in April 2008, the qmail-run package included a minimal newaliases program (doing nothing but output a warning). The fastforward package, if installed, diverted and replaced the newaliases program with a full functional version, giving users the choice. AFAICS this was compliant with our policy, but rejected by ftpmasters[*]. I chose to follow ftpmasters' suggestion back then. Would reverting this change concerning newaliases be acceptable for you, and solve the newaliases-issue? [*] http://smarden.org/pape/Debian/1215531259.4854_332.werc Is there generally any (maybe invisible) progress on this bug's topic? Thanks, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
