Re: Status of qmail?
On Wed, Jul 15, 1998 at 11:10:12AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Unfortunately, I've got a reasonable amount of evidence from Dan's mails that
> he won't accept the symlink idea, as being close enough to qualify for
> distribution under the terms of his var-qmail packages idea.
>
> Either we continue with the qmail-src thing (which is a right pain in the
> arse), or we comply with Dan's wishes, thus violating the Debian file system
> layout.
(Speaking as an outsider) Is this software really that good that it
is worth dealing with an author so recalcitrant?(*)
I mean, an extract from that URL:
Notes on compatibility
Each UNIX vendor has made its own incompatible changes to the OS. This
fractures the user community, creating separate pockets of knowledge
and experience for each system. It dramatically increases the costs of
cross-platform support. It turns 300-page books into 1000-page books.
In short, vendors have thrown away the efficiencies of the mass
market. Diehard UNIX fans adapt; most users and sysadmins give up in
disgust.
The FSSTND/FHS aims to give some sort of standardisation on Unix systems,
but qmail clearly isn't compliant (else this discussion wouldn't
be happening) AND nobody is allowed to modify it to make it compliant,
which would add the very compatibility he is seeking?
It must be damn good software. I will just stick with smail here,
or change to exim or sendmail if I can get it done painlessly
enough in a couple of hours.
Hamish
(*) Thanks to Mr Paul Keating for this great word. Australians will know
who I mean.
--
Hamish Moffatt, hamish@debian.org, hamish@rising.com.au, hmoffatt@mail.com
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome. http://hamish.home.ml.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: