1 |
* Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>: |
2 |
> Is there anything in particular holding back replacing most or all of |
3 |
> the remaining old-style virtuals with new 'package' virtuals? |
4 |
|
5 |
> There's still that stupid !virtual/blah thing to deal with. Old style |
6 |
> virtual providers are allowed to block their own virtual to mean "there |
7 |
> must not be any other provider of this installed" (although it's not |
8 |
> clear what that means if anything other than a simple !virtual/pkg is |
9 |
> used). Anything doing that would now have to explicitly list its own |
10 |
> blocks. Arguably, this is a good thing, since you'd have to say exactly |
11 |
> what you do and don't work with. |
12 |
|
13 |
This is a problem for virtual/mta. |
14 |
|
15 |
As long as we have to block all other mailers with the sendmail |
16 |
compatibility interface to avoid collisions, adding explicit blockers |
17 |
for mailers in all repositories is unlikely to work well. |
18 |
|
19 |
The former mailwrapper/mailer-config tools solved this problem but they |
20 |
were too slow. Once we have a better alternatives system (#348843) the |
21 |
problem might be sorted out (as you probably know). |
22 |
|
23 |
-- |
24 |
Regards Torsten |