Richi Plana (myfedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 12:57 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Richi Plana (myfedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > For instance, if I desired to come up with a spin that doesn't have > > > Sendmail, why must I give up fetchmail, mutt or tor? > > > > Because they *require* a MTA to deliver/send the mail, at least in their > > default configurations > > Well, I figured that they are required because of their default > configurations. But would Fedora be interested in changing it if > modularity were indeed the higher goal? > > Besides, you said it requires an MTA. Would an effort to add the ability > to detect the availability of /sbin/sendmail in the above-mentioned > packages and use it if available or speak SMTP over port 25 if not be > desirable? Packages like evolution and thunderbird do that and therefore > don't "Require: sendmail". It's somehow better to have each package require its own separate configuration than to use a central package that only takes 2MB? I'm not saying you can't do it, but: - every mutt user would have to set up their own muttrc with smtp server information - every fetchmail user would have to change their invocation - and so on, for each package as needed > > dlopen will cause you to break at runtime instead of buildtime if > > ABI changes - that's not good. > > Isn't that what escalating the version number to a higher layer (ie. RPM > and yum) is all about? Sure, but then you're still breaking at runtime instead of build/install time. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
