On Sun, Mar 01 2009, Carsten Hey wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 04:55:23PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>> We could have a exim4 upload implementing in sid this rather quickly
>> after receiving a go.
>
> In general I much prefer a virtual package over a real one but I think
> we should wait a
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 09:44:41PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> You have a case here where the user has managed to run a complete
> system for a non-negligible period of time without ever installing an
> MTA (long enough to either configure oldstable in their sources.list,
> or for the version of
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 08:25:38PM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> Among the problems we try to deal with the proposed solutions is, as
> Daniel wrote in <494422e7.2060...@debian.org>, that apt (and/or
> aptitude) take the alphabetically first package which provides foo and
> installs that to fulfill t
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 06:32:45PM +0100, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
Hmmm. I partially agree, but then we have an unnecessary exception:
such virtual packages must have only one "provider", or else there
will be problems (IIRC) on dpkg, apt or ddbuild, if such dependency
is d
Am 2009-02-27 19:34:04, schrieb Bill Allombert:
> Well there were some problems with popularity-contest, see bug #326593
> IIRC for sending to both f...@example.com and b...@example.com:
> ssmtp allows
> sendmail -oi f...@example.com,b...@example.com
> but not courrier-mta which want
> sendmail
Hi,
On Sonntag, 1. März 2009, Carsten Hey wrote:
> And using stable and testing repositories together, e.g. during
> dist-upgrades, will be forbidden? If not, it can't be avoided.
So what? It's not supported and the user has to fix manually. No big deal.
regards,
Holger
signature.as
Hi,
On Sonntag, 1. März 2009, Carsten Hey wrote:
> In my opinion it is a way better practise to first update the policy and
> then adapt n packages instead of first change them in a way which is
> possibly against the policy and expect the policy to be updated
> accordingly.
There is nothing _aga
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 04:55:23PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Hello,
> [exim4 hat on]
> Neither me nor Marc could come up with obvious problems in the
> proposal. I doubt this is an importartant data point, though. I do
> not think I am exceptionally qualified to find any problems (if
> they
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 08:25:38PM +0100, Carsten Hey wrote:
> ... if apt would try to solve a dependency on the virtual package
> default-mta provided by exim4 and exim5 it would ... choose to install
> exim4 in the described case ...
In case of a virtual default-mta package, the existence of
a t
On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 04:55:23PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> We could have a exim4 upload implementing in sid this rather quickly
> after receiving a go.
In general I much prefer a virtual package over a real one but I think
we should wait a bit until the following issues are clarified:
On
On 2009-02-27 Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 03:42:39PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote:
[...]
>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/05/msg00381.html with the best
>> choice appearantly being <87ve1faria@frosties.localdomain> which
>> proposes that exim4 should provide de
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 06:32:45PM +0100, Giacomo Catenazzi wrote:
> >> Hmmm. I partially agree, but then we have an unnecessary exception:
> >> such virtual packages must have only one "provider", or else there
> >> will be problems (IIRC) on dpkg, apt or ddbuild, if such dependency
> >> is declar
Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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
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
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
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 10:37:19AM +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 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 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
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
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
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
> choice appearantly be
retitle 508644 Sorting out mail-transport-agent mess
thanks
Hi,
I'd like to close/reassign this bug... :-)
A better description of what this bug is about can actually be read in
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=474999 and the solution
would be to file bugs against those 8 packa
24 matches
Mail list logo
