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" program. Should we split the dependencies on real-mta and > only on a sendmail provider. I think that's well out of scope for the current discussion. This is the definition of the 'mail-transport-agent' virtual package that's been used in Debian for many years; I don't think it makes sense to change the virtual package name because of a quibble over the proper definition of an "MTA". > BTW we should also rule a minimal set of sendmail interface (which option > should be implemented). Actually every "MTA" has different sets of > sendmail options, but I don't yet know about problems. 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 definition needs some help if popcon can't use it to reliably send mail to multiple recipients? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
