Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Alexander Skwar <listen@×××××××××××××××.name>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] PORTAGE_ELOG error
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 12:34:01
Message-Id: 44C36B2A.7090100@mid.email-server.info
1 Neil Bothwick schrieb:
2 > On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 00:01:34 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
3 >
4 >> Neil Bothwick schrieb:
5 >>> > Re-using existing software is very unix like
6 >>
7 >> Sending mail with directly speaking SMTP isn't. That's the job
8 >> of a MTA.
9 >
10 > What if you don't have an MTA installed, which is how this question
11 > arose?
12
13 Then you install one. But a quite some services require an MTA. Not
14 necessarily as a dependency in the sense of ebuilds, but to make
15 full use of the programs - eg. cron, at and what not. If you've got
16 an MTA, you can then send mails from the system. And actually, an
17
18 > I have no MTA on this computer, because I run a separate mail
19 > server.
20
21 Those two things don't have anything to do with each other.
22 I've also got a seperate mail server, which I use as my smarthost.
23
24 > Talking SMTP is how all my mail-sending software communicates with
25 > it.
26
27 cron?
28
29 >
30 >> >> Yes, it would, but I'd actually not suggest to do so. Installing
31 >> >> postfix (or any SMTP server, for that matter) just for Portage
32 >> >> isn't the right way to go. It's too much code, opening too many
33 >> >> potential problems, which can be sidestepped by making
34 >> >> portage use /usr/sbin/sendmail instead.
35 >> >
36 >> > Why not let portage work with the same SMTP server you use for all
37 >> > other mail?
38 >>
39 >> Why make me configure SMTP in two places (MTA and Portage)?
40 >
41 > That's a separate question.
42
43 No, it's not.
44
45 > It's trivial to configure portage to use a
46 > local MTA if you have one.
47
48 No, it's not *trivial*. It's not hard, but trivial... No.
49
50 > If you want to use sendmail instead, why not
51 > submit a bug report, preferably with a patch?
52
53 PORTAGE_ELOG_COMMAND exists. I'd rather suggest to dump the
54 wasteful SMTP support. But I doubt that such a good suggestion
55 would be welcome - rather the Windows is chosen.
56
57 > But don't force all those people without an MTA to install one just
58 > because it's easier for you.
59
60 Well, don't force me to use SMTP, just because it's easier for you!
61 And also don't force me, to write "complicated" scripts, just because
62 it's easier for you! If portage would use the standard ways of sending
63 mail, ie. /usr/sbin/sendmail, than this script wouldn't be necessary.
64 MAYBE SMTP could be added as an *OPTION* - but I'd not add this, it's
65 bloat.
66
67 >> > If your mail client can send mail, why not tell portage to use the
68 >> > same route.
69 >>
70 >> Why not make Portage send mail the same way, the MUA
71 >> does it - with /usr/sbin/sendmail?
72 >
73 > My MUA (and that of the OP) don't use sendmail to send mail.
74
75 Which is very bad, IMO. My MUA also has this bug - annoys me
76 extremely, as this forces me, to setup my SMTP configuration
77 in multiple places. I HATE to do redundant work which adds
78 no benefit.
79
80 Sure, I could setup a SMTP server, no problem, but I don't want
81 to have any server daemons running on this system. It's a matter
82 of principle.
83
84 >> > There's absolutely no need to use a local MTA if you don't
85 >> > already have one.
86 >>
87 >> There's no need to configure the same thing in multiple places.
88 >> It's really bad style to make users keep the same configuration
89 >> in multiple places.
90 >
91 > How would you suggest resolving that for users without a local MTA?
92
93 Install a MTA.
94
95 > Or
96 > will ssmtp handle this correctly?
97
98 What "this"? With my howto, /usr/sbin/sendmail is used to send out
99 mail. Benefit of this is, that the "SMTP configuration" (ie. name
100 of (smart-)host and possibly username+password) only has to be set
101 at one spot - in the configuration file of the MTA. What MTA is
102 chosen, is basically upto the user - but Gentoo seems to prefer
103 ssmtp, which is totally fine and also is, what I'd suggest, as ssmtp
104 is so easy to configure and offer's all, that's needed.
105
106 Alexander Skwar
107 --
108 The average nutritional value of promises is roughly zero.
109 --
110 gentoo-user@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-user] PORTAGE_ELOG error Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk>