| 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 |
Archives