Re: [exim] Debian as a 'Special Case' for Exim

Marc Haber wrote:
>
> ... a static IP address
> ... valid DNS
> ... mostly unfiltered access to the public internet
> ... a non-NAT setup
>
> which is not the case for the majority of Debian installations.
>
> Too many UNIX applications expect to be able to send mail by just
> calling /usr/sbin/sendmail, which calls for a local MTA.

I've long thought that Debian would be very well served by shipping a
default alternative to the current exim4-config package, containing just
a simple /etc/exim4/exim.conf file, configured by default for local
delivery only, with no debconf support and no complex macros. That
would be adequate for installation as default MTA, and anyone who wanted
to send mail off-box could either modify their config file, or install
an alternative exim4-config package.

For that matter, you could easily solve 293968 by using different
packages for the single-file and many-file versions of the current configs.

> Debian has the Debconf frontend, which is mandatory to use, and other
> ways of integrating debconf with exim's rather big, monolithic
> configuration have shown not to be practical.

That's misleading, Marc. Debconf use is not _required_ policy; rather,
it's the only way _allowed_ by policy to interact with the user at
install time. Policy makes it clear that eliminating interaction is far
preferable. IMO, defaulting to local delivery only would be quite
acceptable for a debconf-free installation.

Providing multiple exim4-config packages for the major types of
configuration, moving the templating engine from runtime to the build
scripts to generate those packages, would eliminate a lot of the
complexity in the current debian exim configuration, I think. And that
would go a long way to making the sarge cycle a more pleasent one for
this list than the woody cycle has become, both for the list regulars
and for the debian newbies that drop in from time to time.

>>- but 'runnable out of the box' does not compute as a rationale for
>>breaking something.
>
> We didn't break anything.

Well, you broke users' expectations of compatibility with upstream.
There's a lot of value in keeping packages as close to upstream as
policy allows. This is especially true for the user-configurable parts
of packages, and particularly when that configuration is as complex as
Exim's is.

Lately, every time I see a new Debian user post on this list, I get that
sinking feeling in my stomach that you get when you see a car skidding
on the ice, heading in slow motion towards an inevitable collision.

- Marc