Re: [gentoo-user] PORTAGE_ELOG error

[Alexander Skwar <listen@alexander.skwar.name>]

Neil Bothwick schrieb:
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 00:01:34 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> 
>> Neil Bothwick schrieb:
>>> > Re-using existing software is very unix like
>> 
>> Sending mail with directly speaking SMTP isn't. That's the job
>> of a MTA.
> 
> What if you don't have an MTA installed, which is how this question
> arose?

Then you install one. But a quite some services require an MTA. Not
necessarily as a dependency in the sense of ebuilds, but to make
full use of the programs - eg. cron, at and what not. If you've got
an MTA, you can then send mails from the system. And actually, an

> I have no MTA on this computer, because I run a separate mail
> server.

Those two things don't have anything to do with each other.
I've also got a seperate mail server, which I use as my smarthost.

> Talking SMTP is how all my mail-sending software communicates with
> it.

cron?

> 
>> >> Yes, it would, but I'd actually not suggest to do so. Installing
>> >> postfix (or any SMTP server, for that matter) just for Portage
>> >> isn't the right way to go. It's too much code, opening too many
>> >> potential problems, which can be sidestepped by making
>> >> portage use /usr/sbin/sendmail instead.
>> > 
>> > Why not let portage work with the same SMTP server you use for all
>> > other mail?
>> 
>> Why make me configure SMTP in two places (MTA and Portage)?
> 
> That's a separate question.

No, it's not.

> It's trivial to configure portage to use a
> local MTA if you have one.

No, it's not *trivial*. It's not hard, but trivial... No.

> If you want to use sendmail instead, why not
> submit a bug report, preferably with a patch?

PORTAGE_ELOG_COMMAND exists. I'd rather suggest to dump the
wasteful SMTP support. But I doubt that such a good suggestion
would be welcome - rather the Windows is chosen.

> But don't force all those people without an MTA to install one just
> because it's easier for you.

Well, don't force me to use SMTP, just because it's easier for you!
And also don't force me, to write "complicated" scripts, just because
it's easier for you! If portage would use the standard ways of sending
mail, ie. /usr/sbin/sendmail, than this script wouldn't be necessary.
MAYBE SMTP could be added as an *OPTION* - but I'd not add this, it's
bloat.

>> > If your mail client can send mail, why not tell portage to use the
>> > same route.
>> 
>> Why not make Portage send mail the same way, the MUA
>> does it - with /usr/sbin/sendmail?
> 
> My MUA (and that of the OP) don't use sendmail to send mail.

Which is very bad, IMO. My MUA also has this bug - annoys me
extremely, as this forces me, to setup my SMTP configuration
in multiple places. I HATE to do redundant work which adds
no benefit.

Sure, I could setup a SMTP server, no problem, but I don't want
to have any server daemons running on this system. It's a matter
of principle.

>> > There's absolutely no need to use a local MTA if you don't
>> > already have one.
>> 
>> There's no need to configure the same thing in multiple places.
>> It's really bad style to make users keep the same configuration
>> in multiple places.
> 
> How would you suggest resolving that for users without a local MTA?

Install a MTA.

> Or
> will ssmtp handle this correctly?

What "this"? With my howto, /usr/sbin/sendmail is used to send out
mail. Benefit of this is, that the "SMTP configuration" (ie. name
of (smart-)host and possibly username+password) only has to be set
at one spot - in the configuration file of the MTA. What MTA is
chosen, is basically upto the user - but Gentoo seems to prefer
ssmtp, which is totally fine and also is, what I'd suggest, as ssmtp
is so easy to configure and offer's all, that's needed.

Alexander Skwar
-- 
The average nutritional value of promises is roughly zero.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list