| 1 |
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 20:17:46 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I don't know, but it would be a very useful addition - and IMO, |
| 4 |
> they could dump that useless feature, that portage can do SMTP |
| 5 |
> by itself. That's so un-Unix, so Windows-like :( |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Portage doesn't do SMTP by itself, it uses the Python smtplib module. |
| 8 |
Re-using existing software is very unix like |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Yes, it would, but I'd actually not suggest to do so. Installing |
| 11 |
> postfix (or any SMTP server, for that matter) just for Portage |
| 12 |
> isn't the right way to go. It's too much code, opening too many |
| 13 |
> potential problems, which can be sidestepped by making |
| 14 |
> portage use /usr/sbin/sendmail instead. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Why not let portage work with the same SMTP server you use for all other |
| 17 |
mail? If your mail client can send mail, why not tell portage to use the |
| 18 |
same route. There's absolutely no need to use a local MTA if you don't |
| 19 |
already have one. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
User-friendly: (adj.) trivialized, slow, incapable, and boring. |
Archives