Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes:
> I don't think there's any problem here wrt the LSB standard, but I'm not
> thrilled about the package-wise implementation of lsb-invalid-mta,
> particularly from the perspective of a Debian derivative which does not
> ship an MTA by default.
> - user installs a stock system with no MTA.
> - user installs lsb-core so they can install an LSB package
> - user installs a package that Depends: mail-transport-agent
> - user gets a system without a usable MTA, only because they installed
> lsb-core first
> I would argue that lsb-invalid-mta is a perfectly valid solution for
> lsb-core, but that it should not Provide: mail-transport-agent - so that
> any packages that actually say "yes, I require an MTA" get the default
> MTA and not the lsb-invalid-mta bodge.
Yeah, I agree with this, and also that lsb-core should actually depend on:
default-mta | mail-transport-agent | lsb-invalid-mta
to achieve this so that lsb-invalid-mta isn't the default choice. I think
that's separate than the more general standards issue under discussion
here (it still wouldn't prohibit the installation of lsb-core with
lsb-invalid-mta), but I think that change would be a quality of
implementation improvement in the LSB package.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
