Hasse Hagen Johansen wrote:
> I just would let you know that maybe it is a more general problem as mdadm
> is also pulling citadel-server in as a dependency

this really sucks (in this case only if you have recommends enabled,
though). someone should check all depends and recommends in debian to
not declare unconditional relations to mail-transfer-agent.

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 06:35:20PM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Hasse Hagen Johansen wrote:
> > I just would let you know that maybe it is a more general problem as mdadm
> > is also pulling citadel-server in as a dependency
>
> this really sucks (in this case only if you have recommends enabled,
> though). someone should check all depends and recommends in debian to
> not declare unconditional relations to mail-transfer-agent.

Lars Bahner <bahner@debian.org>
pyca

Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
sxid

Debian mdadm maintainers <pkg-mdadm-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
mdadm

Mario Joussen <joussen@debian.org>
mdadm (U)

martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
mdadm (U)

Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
bcron
raccess4vbox3

KELEMEN Péter <fuji@debian.org>
arpwatch

Nick Rusnov <nickrusnov@debian.org>
nmh

Santiago Vila <sanvila@debian.org>
smartlist

--
James
GPG Key: 1024D/61326D40 2003-09-02 James Vega <jamessan@debian.org>

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org> writes:

Daniel> Hasse Hagen Johansen wrote:
>> I just would let you know that maybe it is a more general problem
>> as mdadm is also pulling citadel-server in as a dependency

Daniel> this really sucks (in this case only if you have recommends
Daniel> enabled, though). someone should check all depends and
Daniel> recommends in debian to not declare unconditional relations
Daniel> to mail-transfer-agent.

Yes. Actually like the virtual packages work right now it probably ok to
just take one of the packages satisfying the mail-transfer-agent.

But right now I don't quite understand how apt-get/aptitude would pick the
mail-transfer-agent to use? is it first hit of a package with Provides
mail-transfer-agent? in some package cache or something?

Maybe apt-get/aptitude could just asks the user when they find that
multiple packages Provides the dependency?

I know that would not work non-interactively, but that could be solved
with maybe having some file a standard place telling apt-get/aptitude
which are the official debian standard package for a Virtual package and
install that?



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hasse Hagen Johansen wrote:
> Yes. Actually like the virtual packages work right now it probably ok to
> just take one of the packages satisfying the mail-transfer-agent.

jup.

> But right now I don't quite understand how apt-get/aptitude would pick the
> mail-transfer-agent to use? is it first hit of a package with Provides
> mail-transfer-agent? in some package cache or something?

it takes the first package, alphabetically, that provides
mail-transport-agent and installs that to fulfil the relation to the
virtual-package.

> Maybe apt-get/aptitude could just asks the user when they find that
> multiple packages Provides the dependency?

package maintainers should just fix their packages...

> I know that would not work non-interactively, but that could be solved
> with maybe having some file a standard place telling apt-get/aptitude
> which are the official debian standard package for a Virtual package and
> install that?

...by using 'exim4 | mail-transport-agent' instead of
'mail-transport-agent'.

iirc some time ago, someone wanted to add another layer
(default-mail-transport-agent) so that all packages would be factually
defaulting to install the same package to fulfil the
mail-transport-agent relation when being installed first time, but that
got somehow lost.

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Baumann <daniel@debian.org> writes:

>> Maybe apt-get/aptitude could just asks the user when they find
>> that multiple packages Provides the dependency?

Daniel> package maintainers should just fix their packages...

>> I know that would not work non-interactively, but that could be
>> solved with maybe having some file a standard place telling
>> apt-get/aptitude which are the official debian standard package
>> for a Virtual package and install that?

Daniel> ...by using 'exim4 | mail-transport-agent' instead of
Daniel> 'mail-transport-agent'.

Ok. I understand that

Daniel> iirc some time ago, someone wanted to add another layer
Daniel> (default-mail-transport-agent) so that all packages would be
Daniel> factually defaulting to install the same package to fulfil
Daniel> the mail-transport-agent relation when being installed first
Daniel> time, but that got somehow lost.

I think it would be better to ask which package to use for a virtual if
it is installed interactively. In my case actually didn't want exim4
neither citadel - not for a mailserver. In most cases I think ssmtp
or nullmailer is more appropiate, but that is another discussion :-)

Thanks for taking the time explaining to me how it works.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hasse Hagen Johansen wrote:
> I think it would be better to ask which package to use for a virtual if
> it is installed interactively. In my case actually didn't want exim4
> neither citadel - not for a mailserver. In most cases I think ssmtp
> or nullmailer is more appropiate, but that is another discussion :-)
Actually, apt-get is more often used as non-interactive package manager, so I would not
add interactive "asker" to it. Aptitude, however, has all chances and opportunities to
implement it.

All above is IMO.

--
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
Ukrainian C++ developer, Debian APT contributor

>>>>> "Eugene" == Eugene V Lyubimkin <jackyf.devel@gmail.com> writes:

Eugene> Hasse Hagen Johansen wrote:
>> I think it would be better to ask which package to use for a
>> virtual if it is installed interactively. In my case actually
>> didn't want exim4 neither citadel - not for a mailserver. In most
>> cases I think ssmtp or nullmailer is more appropiate, but that is
>> another discussion :-)
Eugene> Actually, apt-get is more often used as non-interactive
Eugene> package manager, so I would not add interactive "asker" to
Eugene> it. Aptitude, however, has all chances and opportunities to
Eugene> implement it.

Yes, but even though when using apt-get you are asked debconf questions
for various packages? If just a sane(and by sane I mean use the "debian
default" in this situation exim4) default is used when used
non-interactively I can only see that it will help. For
mail-transfer-agent it depends very much of the kind of system you would
end up with, which of the packages which provides mail-transfer-agent
you would use

But I am perfectly fine that it works as it works now. I just didn't
think it was fine when mdadm pulled in citadel-server :-)




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org