Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Aaron Sowry-2
Package: lsb-core
Version: 4.1+Debian8+deb7u1
Severity: important

Hi,

This bug report is a continuation of the following thread:

http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Questions-regarding-lsb-invalid-mta-td2980123.html

To summarize, lsb-invalid-mta does not fulfil the requirements of the LSB
specification, and as such should not be installed as a dependency of
lsb-core. Rather, an actual MTA should be installed, and the lsb-invalid-mta
package preferably removed from the Debian repositories altogether (as I understand
this was a downstream initiative, and does not appear to be appropriate
in Debain). For example, lsb-core could instead depend on "default-mta | mail-transport-agent".

Regards,
Aaron


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.1
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages lsb-core depends on:
ii  alien                                      8.87
ii  at                                         3.1.13-2
ii  bc                                         1.06.95-2+b1
ii  binutils                                   2.22-8
ii  bsd-mailx [mailx]                          8.1.2-0.20111106cvs-1
ii  bsdmainutils                               9.0.3
ii  bsdutils                                   1:2.20.1-5.3
ii  cpio                                       2.11+dfsg-0.1
ii  cron [cron-daemon]                         3.0pl1-124
ii  cups-bsd [lpr]                             1.5.3-5
ii  cups-client                                1.5.3-5
ii  debconf [debconf-2.0]                      1.5.49
ii  ed                                         1.6-2
ii  exim4-daemon-light [mail-transport-agent]  4.80-7
ii  file                                       5.11-2
ii  lib32z1                                    1:1.2.7.dfsg-13
ii  libc6                                      2.13-38
ii  libc6-dev [libc-dev]                       2.13-38
ii  libc6-i386                                 2.13-38
ii  libncurses5                                5.9-10
ii  libpam0g                                   1.1.3-7.1
ii  locales                                    2.13-38
ii  lsb-base                                   4.1+Debian8+deb7u1
ii  lsb-release                                4.1+Debian8+deb7u1
ii  lsb-security                               4.1+Debian8+deb7u1
ii  m4                                         1.4.16-3
ii  make                                       3.81-8.2
ii  man-db                                     2.6.2-1
ii  mawk                                       1.3.3-17
ii  ncurses-term                               5.9-10
ii  passwd                                     1:4.1.5.1-1
ii  patch                                      2.6.1-3
ii  pax                                        1:20120606-2
ii  procps                                     1:3.3.3-3
ii  psmisc                                     22.19-1+deb7u1
ii  python                                     2.7.3-4
ii  rsync                                      3.0.9-4
ii  time                                       1.7-24
ii  zlib1g [libz1]                             1:1.2.7.dfsg-13

lsb-core recommends no packages.

lsb-core suggests no packages.

-- debconf information excluded


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130701125435.15400.67700.reportbug@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud-5
Control: tags -1 +moreinfo

Hi Aaron, and thanks for your bugreport,

Le lundi, 1 juillet 2013 14.54:35, Aaron Sowry a écrit :
> This bug report is a continuation of the following thread:
>
> http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Questions-regarding-lsb-invalid-mta-td2
> 980123.html
>
> To summarize, lsb-invalid-mta does not fulfil the requirements of the
> LSB specification, and as such should not be installed as a
> dependency of lsb-core.

I think the summary is not the above statement, but that your _opinion_
is that lsb-invalid-mta does not fulfil the requirements of the LSB
specification. I don't agree, fwiw. Can you point to a specific LSB
requirement not fulfilled by lsb-invalid-mta, please?

* [15.1] wants the sendmail command, it's there.
* [15.2-sendmail] describes the sendmail command, all options of which
are supported by lsb-invalid-mta's sendmail. A valid point would be that
the sendmail command setup by lsb-invalid-mta is not working properly
(as it always errors out). I would tag such a bug as +wontfix as the
purpose of lsb-invalid-mta is well explained by its name.

[15.1] http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-
Core-generic/command.html#CMDUTIL
[15.2] http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_4.1.0/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-
Core-generic/baselib-sendmail-1.html

> Rather, an actual MTA should be installed,

That's not what the LSB requires; It requires a valid sendmail command.

> and the lsb-invalid-mta package preferably removed from the Debian
> repositories altogether (as I understand this was a downstream
> initiative, and does not appear to be appropriate in Debain).

I don't see the existance of lsb-invalid-mta as a problem, why should it
be removed? I think it _is_ useful for some users of the lsb-* packages
and therefore don't understand why we should take it off them.

> example, lsb-core could instead depend on "default-mta |
> mail-transport-agent".

That's probably where I'd be open to changes: making lsb-core depend on
"default-mta | mail-transport-agent" on Debian (and still lsb-invalid-
mta | mail-transport-agent" on Ubuntu) might be a worthwhile change.

That said, we released Wheezy with both lsb-invalid-mta and the
dependency on it from lsb-core so we would need to respect the choice of
admins that actually _want_ a non-working sendmail in their lsb
dependencies across upgrades.

Cheers,
OdyX


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201307061233.15407.odyx@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Processed: Re: Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Debian Bug Tracking System
In reply to this post by Aaron Sowry-2
Processing control commands:

> tags -1 +moreinfo
Bug #714634 [lsb-core] lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead
Added tag(s) moreinfo.

--
714634: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=714634
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [hidden email] with problems


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/handler.s.B714634.137310680026508.transcript@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Aaron Sowry-2
In reply to this post by Didier 'OdyX' Raboud-5
Didier, Jeff,

> I think the summary is not the above statement, but that your _opinion_
> is that lsb-invalid-mta does not fulfil the requirements of the LSB
> specification. I don't agree, fwiw. Can you point to a specific LSB
> requirement not fulfilled by lsb-invalid-mta, please?

Of course it's my opinion, and I don't think it's a completely unfounded
one. From the LSB sendmail description:

"Note: The name sendmail was chosen for historical reasons, but the
sendmail command specified here is intended to *reflect functionality
provided by smail, exim and other implementations*, not just the
sendmail implementation." (emphasis mine)

Anyway, we could sit here and discuss the semantics of the LSB
specification all week, however I'm of the firm belief that the authors
of the specification did not include a sendmail command just because it
might be fun to have a command called "sendmail" which does nothing;
rather, it is intended to be a functional interface through which
applications can send email. I've CC'd Jeff Licquia on this mail,
hopefully he can chime in with his thoughts.

> I don't see the existance of lsb-invalid-mta as a problem, why should it
> be removed? I think it _is_ useful for some users of the lsb-* packages
> and therefore don't understand why we should take it off them.

I would love to hear an example of where a binary which simply exits
non-zero could be reasonably considered "useful" in this case. We
already have /bin/false.

> That's probably where I'd be open to changes: making lsb-core depend on
> "default-mta | mail-transport-agent" on Debian (and still lsb-invalid-
> mta | mail-transport-agent" on Ubuntu) might be a worthwhile change.

Agreed. But let's focus on Debian and let downstream deal with their own
problems.

> That said, we released Wheezy with both lsb-invalid-mta and the
> dependency on it from lsb-core so we would need to respect the choice of
> admins that actually _want_ a non-working sendmail in their lsb
> dependencies across upgrades.

This isn't really an administrator's problem, it's a problem for
developers of applications designed to be run on LSB-compliant systems.
I can't think of any reason an administrator would ever "want" a
non-functional sendmail command on their system.

Thanks,
Aaron


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1373114343.16697.20.camel@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Jeff Licquia-2
On 07/06/2013 08:39 AM, Aaron Sowry wrote:
> Anyway, we could sit here and discuss the semantics of the LSB
> specification all week, however I'm of the firm belief that the authors
> of the specification did not include a sendmail command just because it
> might be fun to have a command called "sendmail" which does nothing;
> rather, it is intended to be a functional interface through which
> applications can send email. I've CC'd Jeff Licquia on this mail,
> hopefully he can chime in with his thoughts.

<hat type="lsb-spec-author">

The LSB is, first and foremost, about compatibility for apps.  If apps
expect something to be there, and for it to act in a certain way, then
that's our top priority.  Everything else is secondary.

I don't like lsb-invalid-mta, but as mentioned in the thread leading up
to this bug, we agreed on it with the Ubuntu folks because it at least
preserves app expectations.  It was the preferred alternative to
Ubuntu's planned move: just get rid of the MTA requirement entirely, and
thus break compatibility.  To the extent that lsb-invalid-mta preserves
app compatibility, therefore, it's OK by us; not ideal, or even
recommended, but a valid option.

Apps expect sendmail to be there, and they are expected to be able to
handle errors sendmail might produce (especially with something as
potentially flaky as email).  The lsb-invalid-mta package satisfies
those criteria.

Whether Debian decides that they want to support MTA-less configurations
using lsb-invalid-mta is up to Debian.

</hat>
<hat type="debian-developer">

Since we install an MTA by default, I expect that there are very few
installations of lsb-invalid-mta (perhaps none).  So I don't think
getting rid of it for jessie is necessarily out of the question.  It
certainly doesn't serve the same purpose in Debian as it does in Ubuntu.

I will say that I enthusiastically support this part of the change, and
would advocate that it happen:

>> That's probably where I'd be open to changes: making lsb-core depend on
>> "default-mta | mail-transport-agent" on Debian (and still lsb-invalid-
>> mta | mail-transport-agent" on Ubuntu) might be a worthwhile change.

I'd even support this as a bug-fix for wheezy, not just in jessie.

>> That said, we released Wheezy with both lsb-invalid-mta and the
>> dependency on it from lsb-core so we would need to respect the choice of
>> admins that actually _want_ a non-working sendmail in their lsb
>> dependencies across upgrades.
>
> This isn't really an administrator's problem, it's a problem for
> developers of applications designed to be run on LSB-compliant systems.
> I can't think of any reason an administrator would ever "want" a
> non-functional sendmail command on their system.

I believe this ship has sailed for wheezy, certainly.  But for jessie, I
tend to agree with Aaron.  Too much stuff on a Debian system assumes a
working MTA to make lsb-invalid-mta an interesting choice for Debian
users.  So dropping it wouldn't necessarily be bad for our users.

That said, I'm not dogmatic about it.  If we want to make the choice
available, cool.  Just as long as the choice isn't the default (i.e.
Depends: default-mta | mail-transport-agent).

</hat>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51D868C7.5050406@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Aaron Sowry-2
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 14:58 -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:

> I don't like lsb-invalid-mta, but as mentioned in the thread leading up
> to this bug, we agreed on it with the Ubuntu folks because it at least
> preserves app expectations.  It was the preferred alternative to
> Ubuntu's planned move: just get rid of the MTA requirement entirely, and
> thus break compatibility.  To the extent that lsb-invalid-mta preserves
> app compatibility, therefore, it's OK by us; not ideal, or even
> recommended, but a valid option.
>
> Apps expect sendmail to be there, and they are expected to be able to
> handle errors sendmail might produce (especially with something as
> potentially flaky as email).  The lsb-invalid-mta package satisfies
> those criteria.

Time for a real-world anecdote.

Ubuntu has another long-standing (at least 11.10 - 13.04) LSB bug[1]
which makes install_initd fail. This means that it's not possible to
install services on Ubuntu as per the LSB spec.

If what you're saying regarding sendmail is accurate, then [1] is not a
problem as far as the LSB is concerned; install_initd exists, and this
alone is enough to satisfy the LSB requirements, regardless of whether
it actually works or not.

Pretend you're developing software to be run on LSB-compliant systems -
let's say a program which sends administrative emails to a specified
address whenever certain system states are encountered. In this case,
Ubuntu is an example of a system on which the software cannot be
installed, cannot perform it's function even when installed by other
(non-LSB) means, but does not violate the LSB in either of these
regards.

I'm sorry, but if this is the case (and I certainly hope it isn't) then,
at least from a developer's perspective, the LSB is an irrelevant
specification.

As a side note, I also disagree that providing a non-functional sendmail
is better than providing none at all. Applications should be able to
handle errors raised by sendmail, yes, but very few applications expect
to have to deal with an error such as "this command isn't actually what
it's pretending to be". If sendmail is missing completely, then it's
immediately obvious what the problem is.

> Since we install an MTA by default, I expect that there are very few
> installations of lsb-invalid-mta (perhaps none).  So I don't think
> getting rid of it for jessie is necessarily out of the question.  It
> certainly doesn't serve the same purpose in Debian as it does in Ubuntu.

Agree 100%.

> I'd even support this as a bug-fix for wheezy, not just in jessie.

Yes please :)

> I believe this ship has sailed for wheezy, certainly.  But for jessie, I
> tend to agree with Aaron.  Too much stuff on a Debian system assumes a
> working MTA to make lsb-invalid-mta an interesting choice for Debian
> users.  So dropping it wouldn't necessarily be bad for our users.

My $0.02 - I agree with Jeff, however having lsb-invalid-mta available
in the repositories for those who want it [sic] probably isn't the end
of the world. So long as it's not a dependency of lsb-core I'm happy.

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lsb/+bug/798192


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1373184584.2961.34.camel@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Jeff Licquia-2
On 07/07/2013 04:09 AM, Aaron Sowry wrote:
> Ubuntu has another long-standing (at least 11.10 - 13.04) LSB bug[1]
> which makes install_initd fail. This means that it's not possible to
> install services on Ubuntu as per the LSB spec.

It's been fixed, I see.

> Pretend you're developing software to be run on LSB-compliant systems -
> let's say a program which sends administrative emails to a specified
> address whenever certain system states are encountered. In this case,
> Ubuntu is an example of a system on which the software cannot be
> installed, cannot perform it's function even when installed by other
> (non-LSB) means, but does not violate the LSB in either of these
> regards.
>
> I'm sorry, but if this is the case (and I certainly hope it isn't) then,
> at least from a developer's perspective, the LSB is an irrelevant
> specification.

Someone once said "Politics is the art of the possible."  So are
standards in the free software world.  That's life.

I suspect, though, that you're undervaluing the 99% of the spec that
doesn't have to do with sendmail.

BTW, if you feel strongly about this, I'd encourage you to file the
appropriate bugs and have this discussion over there.  No one here needs
convincing, I think, that lsb-invalid-mta is a bad idea.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51DA2BA7.3020408@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud-5
In reply to this post by Jeff Licquia-2
Hi both,

Le samedi, 6 juillet 2013 20.58:15, Jeff Licquia a écrit :

> <hat type="lsb-spec-author">
>
> The LSB is, first and foremost, about compatibility for apps.  If
> apps expect something to be there, and for it to act in a certain
> way, then that's our top priority.  Everything else is secondary.
>
> (…) To the extent that lsb-invalid-mta preserves app compatibility,
> therefore, it's OK by us; not ideal, or even recommended, but a valid
> option.
> (…)
> </hat>

Thanks Jeff for confirming that lsb-invalid-mta is a LSB-valid sendmail
implementation. That confirms the initial evaluation I had done when
merging lsb-invalid-mta in the first place.

Le samedi, 6 juillet 2013 20.58:15, Jeff Licquia a écrit :
> <hat type="debian-developer">
> Since we install an MTA by default, I expect that there are very few
> installations of lsb-invalid-mta (perhaps none).

Popcon [0] reports 251 installations (0.17%).

[0] http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=lsb-invalid-mta

Le samedi, 6 juillet 2013 20.58:15, Jeff Licquia a écrit :
> I will say that I enthusiastically support this part of the change,
> and would advocate that it happen:
>
> >> That's probably where I'd be open to changes: making lsb-core
> >> depend on "default-mta | mail-transport-agent" on Debian (and
> >> still lsb-invalid- mta | mail-transport-agent" on Ubuntu) might
> >> be a worthwhile change.

Le samedi, 6 juillet 2013 14.39:03, Aaron Sowry a écrit :
> Agreed. But let's focus on Debian and let downstream deal with their
> own problems.

Please let me focus on where I see fit; I have put quite some effort in
joining forces between Debian and Ubuntu for several packages and think
it's a worthwhile effort, mind you. For this change though, it's
probably useful to make it unconditional and see how Ubuntu imports it.

Anyway, as Jeff is uploader on src:lsb, and my mind is not completely
settled on this issue, I'm happy to let you implement these changes; I
won't push them, but won't stand in their way either.

Le samedi, 6 juillet 2013 20.58:15, Jeff Licquia a écrit :
> I'd even support this as a bug-fix for wheezy, not just in jessie.

I would be _very_ surprised if the stable release team accepted such a
change in Wheezy, but I guess you don't risk much by asking.

> >> That said, we released Wheezy with both lsb-invalid-mta and the
> >> dependency on it from lsb-core so we would need to respect the
> >> choice of admins that actually _want_ a non-working sendmail in
> >> their lsb dependencies across upgrades.
> >
> > This isn't really an administrator's problem, it's a problem for
> > developers of applications designed to be run on LSB-compliant
> > systems. I can't think of any reason an administrator would ever
> > "want" a non-functional sendmail command on their system.
>
> I believe this ship has sailed for wheezy, certainly.  But for
> jessie, I tend to agree with Aaron.  Too much stuff on a Debian
> system assumes a working MTA to make lsb-invalid-mta an interesting
> choice for Debian users.  So dropping it wouldn't necessarily be bad
> for our users.

Frankly, I think there are good reasons to use a non-functional
sendmail; and installing lsb-invalid-mta is easier than configuring exim
or postfix to always error out.

> That said, I'm not dogmatic about it.  If we want to make the choice
> available, cool.  Just as long as the choice isn't the default (i.e.
> Depends: default-mta | mail-transport-agent).

As mentionned above, I'm not dogmatic about lsb-invalid-mta either. I
think it does serve a purpose (it's not installed on my machines fwiw)
but won't fight for it, or against it's removal. So Jeff, if you want to
fix this bug, stand bold for these changes and just do it! :-)

Cheers,
OdyX


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201307080831.55580.odyx@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Aaron Sowry-2
In reply to this post by Jeff Licquia-2
Hi,

> BTW, if you feel strongly about this, I'd encourage you to file the
> appropriate bugs and have this discussion over there.  No one here needs
> convincing, I think, that lsb-invalid-mta is a bad idea.

I do feel strongly about this, as the outcome of this discussion will
determine whether or not the LSB is something we can refer to when
designing applications which need to work across distributions. I
obviously can't argue that lsb-invalid-mta *is* in violation of the LSB,
but I would like to argue that it *should* be. However, as you point
out, there are more appropriate forums for this discussion, and I hope
that any criticism can be seen as constructive.

Anyway, as far as Debian is concerned, I'll leave this bug in Jeff's
capable hands as Didier suggests.

Thanks both for your time and input.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1373269101.14767.9.camel@wotan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud-5
Hi,

Le lundi, 8 juillet 2013 09.38:21, Aaron Sowry a écrit :
> > BTW, if you feel strongly about this, I'd encourage you to file the
> > appropriate bugs and have this discussion over there.  No one here
> > needs convincing, I think, that lsb-invalid-mta is a bad idea.
>
> I do feel strongly about this, as the outcome of this discussion will
> determine whether or not the LSB is something we can refer to when
> designing applications which need to work across distributions. I
> obviously can't argue that lsb-invalid-mta *is* in violation of the
> LSB, but I would like to argue that it *should* be.

Please note that the default-mta as shipped by Debian (exim4) in its
default configuration is not sending mails "to the internet" at all. If
your LSB-based assumption is that you can invoke sendmail to send mails
to anyone, then it is not fulfilled by default-mta either.

So, taking a step back, sendmail, as currently shipped by default-mta,
only ensures that mails are sent to local users. In that context, I see
many uses for a sendmail erroring out instead of an working sendmail
piling mails in local mboxes never read by anyone.

(But I wrote I wouldn't stand in the way, hereby shutting up. :-p )

Cheers,
OdyX


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201307081046.40797.odyx@...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead

Aaron Sowry-2
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 10:46 +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote:
> Please note that the default-mta as shipped by Debian (exim4) in its
> default configuration is not sending mails "to the internet" at all. If
> your LSB-based assumption is that you can invoke sendmail to send mails
> to anyone, then it is not fulfilled by default-mta either.

This is a good point. However, I still see it as an improvement - at
least local mails can be sent. The LSB even stipulates that sendmail
exiting 0 does not guarantee successful delivery (which seems reasonable
to me).

> So, taking a step back, sendmail, as currently shipped by default-mta,
> only ensures that mails are sent to local users. In that context, I see
> many uses for a sendmail erroring out instead of an working sendmail
> piling mails in local mboxes never read by anyone.

Who says they never get read? By default, cron sends local mails for
example - in fact, I would love to know how lsb-invalid-mta affects cron
in this regard. Does this mean nobody gets notified when a cron job
fails? If so, this is really bad.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1373289488.14767.23.camel@wotan

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#714634: marked as done (lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead)

Debian Bug Tracking System
In reply to this post by Aaron Sowry-2
Your message dated Mon, 07 Aug 2017 10:46:37 -0400
with message-id <[hidden email]>
and subject line Re: Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead
has caused the Debian Bug report #714634,
regarding lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [hidden email]
immediately.)


--
714634: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=714634
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [hidden email] with problems

Package: lsb-core
Version: 4.1+Debian8+deb7u1
Severity: important

Hi,

This bug report is a continuation of the following thread:

http://debian.2.n7.nabble.com/Questions-regarding-lsb-invalid-mta-td2980123.html

To summarize, lsb-invalid-mta does not fulfil the requirements of the LSB
specification, and as such should not be installed as a dependency of
lsb-core. Rather, an actual MTA should be installed, and the lsb-invalid-mta
package preferably removed from the Debian repositories altogether (as I understand
this was a downstream initiative, and does not appear to be appropriate
in Debain). For example, lsb-core could instead depend on "default-mta | mail-transport-agent".

Regards,
Aaron


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 7.1
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-4-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages lsb-core depends on:
ii  alien                                      8.87
ii  at                                         3.1.13-2
ii  bc                                         1.06.95-2+b1
ii  binutils                                   2.22-8
ii  bsd-mailx [mailx]                          8.1.2-0.20111106cvs-1
ii  bsdmainutils                               9.0.3
ii  bsdutils                                   1:2.20.1-5.3
ii  cpio                                       2.11+dfsg-0.1
ii  cron [cron-daemon]                         3.0pl1-124
ii  cups-bsd [lpr]                             1.5.3-5
ii  cups-client                                1.5.3-5
ii  debconf [debconf-2.0]                      1.5.49
ii  ed                                         1.6-2
ii  exim4-daemon-light [mail-transport-agent]  4.80-7
ii  file                                       5.11-2
ii  lib32z1                                    1:1.2.7.dfsg-13
ii  libc6                                      2.13-38
ii  libc6-dev [libc-dev]                       2.13-38
ii  libc6-i386                                 2.13-38
ii  libncurses5                                5.9-10
ii  libpam0g                                   1.1.3-7.1
ii  locales                                    2.13-38
ii  lsb-base                                   4.1+Debian8+deb7u1
ii  lsb-release                                4.1+Debian8+deb7u1
ii  lsb-security                               4.1+Debian8+deb7u1
ii  m4                                         1.4.16-3
ii  make                                       3.81-8.2
ii  man-db                                     2.6.2-1
ii  mawk                                       1.3.3-17
ii  ncurses-term                               5.9-10
ii  passwd                                     1:4.1.5.1-1
ii  patch                                      2.6.1-3
ii  pax                                        1:20120606-2
ii  procps                                     1:3.3.3-3
ii  psmisc                                     22.19-1+deb7u1
ii  python                                     2.7.3-4
ii  rsync                                      3.0.9-4
ii  time                                       1.7-24
ii  zlib1g [libz1]                             1:1.2.7.dfsg-13

lsb-core recommends no packages.

lsb-core suggests no packages.

-- debconf information excluded

Version: 9.20150826

Le lundi, 1 juillet 2013, 14.54:35 h EDT Aaron Sowry a écrit :
> To summarize, lsb-invalid-mta does not fulfil the requirements of the LSB
> specification, and as such should not be installed as a dependency of
> lsb-core.

lsb-invalid-mta (as well as lsb-core) have been removed from src:LSB in
version 9.20150826 and lsb-compat (re-introduced later) did only have a
dependency against mail-transport-agent.

Cheers,
    OdyX

signature.asc (673 bytes) Download Attachment