[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 15:16:11 +0400
From: croco@...nwall.com
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Postfix 2.11 is ready for commit
Galaxy, Gremlin,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 02:41:41PM +0400, (GalaxyMaster) wrote:
> What we need to do is to
> implement proper 'alternatives' interface, so the user could decide
> which of the MTA packages provide the sendmail interface.
Ohhh, can we may be avoid this, errr?... Please :)
I'd say that 'alternatives' is one of these "solutions" that solve some
imaginary problems while adding new problems, and this time real. Owl is
not intended for people who can't handle symlinks manually. 'Alternatives'
is good in the situation where there are lots of different packages for the
same purpose (and there are lots of such purposes, too), and the user,
using a GUI to handle packages, doesn't really understand what is going on,
but enjoys programs replacing each other 'automagically'. In Owl, the
situation with different packages for the same purpose is rare, and,
definitely, it will only appear for people who really knows what they do.
So, I vote for letting people who need more than one MTA (BTW, anyone but
Gremlin?) just remove a package that provides a symlink, instead of having
all Owl package maintainers support these 'alternatives', for which we
would need a lot of conventions, documentation etc. I really love that
'Keep it simple, hmmm' principle :) Actually, having 'alternatives' in Owl
will reduce its usability, as seen from my point of view -- simply because
I've got a lot of things to spend my time on, instead of learning another
hackish convention and recalling it every time I have to build another
package.
--
Croco
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
