On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 08:33 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> No, you aren't agreeing. I'm saying that *either* lsb-core should prefer
> lsb-invalid-mta, *or* lsb-invalid-mta should not exist. lsb-invalid-mta,
> without a Provides: mail-transport-agent, *does* satisfy the cron issue.
Okay, I misund
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:53:52AM +0200, Aaron Sowry wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 17:25 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > If lsb-core is going to pull in default-mta as the preferred option, then
> > arguably lsb-invalid-mta shouldn't exist at all
> I agree. None of the suggested solutions addre
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 17:25 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If lsb-core is going to pull in default-mta as the preferred option, then
> arguably lsb-invalid-mta shouldn't exist at all
I agree. None of the suggested solutions address the crontab issue, and
there may be other similar problems we have
Le mercredi, 10 juillet 2013 20.20:21, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:10:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > (It's probably also worth noting that Debian does not claim LSB
> > compliance and the description of that Debian package states,
> > rather prominently: "The intent o
Le jeudi, 11 juillet 2013 02.27:52, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> Steve Langasek 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
Steve Langasek 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 autom
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
Steve Langasek 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 sy
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 02:10:22AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> But, in the example that you raise, this is an optional configuration.
> Indeed, at least at present and in all previous releases of Debian, one
> has to go out of one's way to get the lsb-invalid-mta package installed,
> since a fully
9 matches
Mail list logo
