David wrote:
>>If I did not want this benefits I'd use http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
>
> Exactly.. I moved to Debian on account of .deb packaging, and am a bit
> reluctant to begin "wildcard" additions. As Andreas has said, I'm not
> afraid to compile the package, but I hate to do something that will mess
> up the nice clean, packaging system.
It isn't a nice clean packaging system if you can't drop in something
else without problems, and thats why i don't like debian, they have
EVERYTHING, but everything depends on something else, either you brake
your whole system, or you stay with the defaults.
I prefer small and clean DISTRIBUTIONS, where you can put your own stuff
in if you wan't, in fact i use Trustix (
www.trustix.org) with everything
updated what i need myself (exim instead of postfix, courier instead of
uw-imap, ....) and i still can use the Trustix updating-tool without
problems. In and cases where i need a package more than one time i just
build my own rpm and deploy it on my maschines.
> So.. would there be anything wrong with just leaving exim3 installed,
> this would satisfy the m-t-a dependencies, and leave all the other
> exim-related things in place.. Then compile exim4 to go into
> /usr/local/bin, put a symlink to exim4 in as /usr/sbin/exim.. Then it
> might be good to put a "hold" on exim and leave it like that unless and
> until a suitable package for exim might appear on Debian. Is there any
> way that this could cause a problem? Not exactly "The Debian Way", but
> workable? I'm not sure I'm capable of creating a bona-fide deb package
> yet, and it seems that creating an equivs package would be no less
> offbeat than my idea.
Debian will not provide a exim4 package until the next release.
The problem (i don't see it as an advantage) with debian is, that they
package up EVERYTHING, if you want to use a newer (another) version of
something you get into trouble.
ciao
