Re: Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian
* Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org) [090823 11:32]:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:05:50PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > b. There are lots of issues why qmail doesn't look too competitive,
> > like the static user ids,
>
> I don't see any other mention of static user ids in this discussion. Can
> you explain what the problem is there? Are these static IDs that have been
> allocated in accordance with Debian Policy?
They are. "Not too competive" isn't a translation of "we need to
disallow the upload", but if I need to choose a MTA that would be a
reason for me to take a closer look at competiting products. I think
this is similar to
> >, unbundling of outgoing messages etc.
>
> This is a good reason to not use qmail, but unlike the delayed bounce
> problem I don't think it's critical.
for that.
> > c. There are some (small) issues like that newaliases is provided by
> > another package. However, any of these issues has an obvious
> > resolution path, so they shouldn't be blocking.
>
> What other issues besides the newaliases issue do you include here?
>
> I think the newaliases policy violation should have also been listed as a
> blocker for NEW inclusion, on the ballot.
I'm ok with that. Currently, nothing is on top of my mind (perhaps
anymore). At least I cannot remember anything where I said "this is
totally bad, and I haven't read a patch for it".
Cheers,
Andi
Reply to: