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: msmtp - an SMTP client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=243631 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2007-06-23 05:43 EST ------- Looking at mutt, it seems logical to requires /usr/sbin/sendmail since it is what is used in the default case. So using alternatives seems to me the only way to fill the provides for mutt. So here is what I propose (for esmtp, msmtp and ssmtp): * use alternatives, but only for what is truely provided. So no mailq, no newaliases in the alternatives system, only /usr/sbin/sendmail * use a lower value for priority than real mta. Real mta are at 30, so maybe use 20. * don't provide mta or MTA: nothing use it in fedora, and it is ambiguous (what is a MTA? Something that sends mail, or also receive and deliver locally)? * don't provide smtpdaemon, this means that a smtp daemon is listening on 127.0.0.1, and neither of these packages provide that. For information: $ repoquery --whatrequires MTA mta (nothing) $ repoquery --whatprovides mta (nothing) $ repoquery --whatprovides MTA postfix-2:2.4.3-3.fc8.i386 sendmail-0:8.14.1-2.i386 exim-0:4.66-3.fc7.i386 ssmtp-0:2.61-11.1.fc7.i386 $ repoquery --whatprovides smtpdaemon postfix-2:2.4.3-3.fc8.i386 sendmail-0:8.14.1-2.i386 exim-0:4.66-3.fc7.i386 ssmtp-0:2.61-11.1.fc7.i386 $ repoquery --whatrequires smtpdaemon mlmmj-0:1.2.14-2.fc7.i386 bugzilla-0:3.0-3.fc7.noarch amavisd-new-0:2.4.5-1.fc7.noarch fetchmail-0:6.3.7-1.fc7.i386 -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review