Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ssmtp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188400 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-04-10 03:47 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Thank for the helpful comments, Patrice ! > Yes, I will need a sponsor, but I've thought I could ask for one when the > package gets in a neater shape. In my opinion you should start to find one sooner than later... I think a sponsor not only look at the shape of your package, but also your willing to accept the fedora extra rules and to learn from others... > I did consider not including smtpdaemon in provides, but this is a tough > decision and I would definitely like to hear a second opinion. The problemn is > that there are packages in Base (such as mdadm) which claim that they require > smtpdaemon, although they make either direct use of /usr/sbin/sendmail or via > the mail command. In my case I was interested exactly by the fact that I do NOT > want/need to have a daemon listening on port 25. Same goes for MTA. It seems to me a mdadm bug. smtpdaemon should be required in case there is a need for a daemon listening on port 25. It seems very wrong to me to provide smtpdaemon when it is untrue, the packages that requires a smtp daemon would fail. > Without the alternatives --auto call, a default mta would not be restored if the > package is removed, this is why I think that the script should be kept. No, after alternatives --remove, if the current alternative was the alternative removed, it is set to the auto. However if the current alternative wasn't the auto nor the removed alternative, the alternative is changed to the auto, this is very bad! > The reasons I have placed ssmtp in /usr/sbin are that both sendmail and postfix > place the sendmail binary in /usr/sbin and so does the Debian provided ssmtp, > too. Since applications actually look after /usr/sbin/sendmail which is a > symlink (via alternatives mta) to the real binaries, I guess I could move ssmtp > to /usr/bin. However I kind of think that maintaining the placement as chosen by > the authors of the program is a good idea. Ok, I had a wrong loook at Makefile.in. I think it is a mistake, as ssmtp could be used by users even if it isn't set up as a sendmail replacement. esmtp and msmtp (which compares more to ssmtp than sendmail and postfix, because they don't need to be run as root) are installed in bindir. To me it looks like an upstream error. But feel free to do what you prefer. > added openssl/openssl-devel to requires/buildrequires. Other minor changes are > listed in the Changelog. The Requires openssl isn't needed, it should be picked up automatically by rpm. In the changelog there are typos on the version. %dir %{_sysconfdir}/ssmtp/ would be better than %{_sysconfdir}/ssmtp/ because the latter means the directory and what it contains, but what it contains is allready listed separately. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
