On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:08:00PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > > 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. 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. -- 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
