Le jeudi, 11 juillet 2013 02.27:52, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > > If lsb-core is going to pull in default-mta as the preferred > > option, then arguably lsb-invalid-mta shouldn't exist at all (or > > at least, there's no reason to label it an 'lsb' package). I > > think the purpose of the package is to let lsb-core be installed > > without automatically pulling in an MTA that has to be configured, > > and default-mta | mail-transport-agent | lsb-invalid-mta wouldn't > > achieve that. > > > > But I think dropping the Provides: from lsb-invalid-mta would. > > Ah, I see. Hm. > > I do think that the behavior a user most likely expects, when > installing lsb-core, is to pull in a functional MTA. In other > words, I think it's fine to provide a way for a sysadmin to select > to not configure an MTA, but I do think that installing lsb-core > should result in configuring an MTA by default.
I am of the opposite opinion: if an administrator decided to uninstall the default-mta as installed by Debian, then the installation of lsb- core should respect that choice and not impose the configuration of an MTA, especially because lsb-* is meant as a compliance layer, not a functional layer (in my understanding). As argued before in this bug, LSB only formally requires the presence of a compliant sendmail command, not that this one does anything useful. I think I quite like Steve's line: make lsb-invalid-mta stop providing mail-transport-agent. In all but unusual Debian installations (in which the administrator decided to remove all MTAs), the installation of lsb- core will result in the re-use of the installed MTA. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org