On Monday 09 April 2007, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sunday 08 April 2007 16:08:12 Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > I thought that a Provides: smtpdaemon would mean a service that runs a
> > local SMTP service daemon and Provides: MTA something sendmail command
> > line compatible that can send mail; filed some bugs, but it appears that
> > there are some disagreement over their purposes.
>
> Hrm, I always thought they were hooked up with alternatives and could
> supply the role of sendmail should you want something else. I thought most
> our software that sends mail out has a generic require on mta with the
> assumption that should something be brought in via the mta requirement that
> it would set up alternatives correctly and operate in an expected way.
Well, that's more or less the original question reworded: which requirement
("MTA" or "smtpdaemon"; there's no "mta" in rpmdb, it's just the name of the
alternative), and exactly what is the expected way? How does a packager
decide which of these to add a dependency on?
Current state of affairs:
* Uses the "mta" alternative to install /usr/sbin/sendmail and at least a
subset of its slaves:
- yes: sendmail, postfix, exim, ssmtp, esmtp
- no : -
* Provides: MTA:
- yes: postfix, exim, ssmtp
- no : sendmail, esmtp
* Provides: smtpdaemon:
- yes: sendmail, postfix, exim, ssmtp
- no : esmtp
Use of the "mta" alternative seems to be in order, but I thought the "correct"
way to fix the rest would be to add "Provides: MTA" to sendmail and esmtp,
and remove "Provides: smtpdaemon" from ssmtp. This way the "mta" alternative
and "MTA" Provides would be in sync, and only things that actually run SMTP
daemons would provide "smtpdaemon".
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
