> According to that spec, any return value greater than 0 is an error > condition. So lsb-invalid-mta does actually conform to the spec it's > referencing.
Ah, missed that part of the spec. I still disagree that lsb-invalid-mta conforms to it though, since it doesn't actually implement anything the spec describes. > We package a number of "full" MTAs, such as Exim, Sendmail, and Postfix, > as well as a number of "stripped-down" MTAs such as ssmtp. As they all > provide the "sendmail" command-line utility, they all conflict with each > other. (As you'd probably expect; how many MTAs do you really need > installed on a single system?) The default MTA is Exim. > > All of our MTAs Provide: the virtual package "mail-transport-agent", so > you can get a complete list with apt: Okay. So, Debian considers an MTA to consist of both a server and client component. This seems like a sensible enough definition. If we want to provide /usr/sbin/sendmail without installing an entire MTA then, I guess we have two options: 1) Install the entire MTA, but leave the server component unconfigured (assuming this is even possible). Enabling the server component later could be done using dpkg-reconfigure. 2) Make a new package available which provides only /usr/sbin/sendmail, but not "mail-transport-agent" (i.e. installs no server). In this case, I guess all packages providing mail-transport-agent would need to replace this package. Perhaps I've missed something. Thoughts? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
