On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 09:39:11AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > On Apr 15, Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (2) It would seem a shame to conflict with exim 3.x for such a minor > > matter. How about, on clean install of mutt, doing something > The exim maintainers could have fixed this stupid little details in all > these years, it's not like this is my fault...
8-) Actually, more seriously, if a site is upgrading to sarge (and this change makes it into sarge), you will be forcing them either to uninstall mutt or to upgrade to exim4, which is somewhat drastic, especially for production systems. Perhaps you could have a debconf question on this matter? > > in the postinst like: > > > > exim=$(dpkg -l exim | tail -n 1 | cut -c 1) > > if [ "$exim" = i ]; then > > # mangle /etc/Muttrc to unset write_bcc > > fi > Policy violation. I said "on a clean install", not on an existing install. But even then, I don't particularly like it. Julian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
