Re: Status of qmail?
Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> writes:
> Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > ..... I'm pretty sure the symlink tree is close enough if
> > it's there. I can already see the "This package is not {FSSTND,FHS}
> > compliant" bug.
>
> 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.
Hmm, while *both* sides are dogmatic, no progress will be made.
To not have the option to use an excellent MTA, just because we HAVE
TO BE RIGHT about the FSSTND, would be a shame.
> 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.
Any binary package would be better than no-package. If we can have a
non-FSSTND compiant binary package, I would say let's go for it.
If we can't have a binary package then maybe it would be possible to
make the ``src-thing'' a little more palatable. E.g. some place
holder scripts during initial installation so that one has the option
of selecting qmail as a MTA? And then, when the system is up and
running, the src-thing procedure.
> ... suggesting that the qmail postinst moves stuff around after
> installation, to make it fit with the Debian file system layout ?
<stuff deleted>
> ... Doing sneaky things in the
> postinst seems to violate the ``good-faith'' part of the above.
>
> I suppose that another maintainer could come up with a package
> ``qmail-debianise'' that depended on qmail, and moved everything after it was
> installed, but since it is so clearly against Dan's wishes, I think doing so
> would be a bad thing to do.
What would be the technical advantage of a ``qmail-debianise''? There
may be a small advantage for the administrator, but probably at the
cost of alienating DJB. Individual admins will do whatever they like
anyway.
> I cannot say I like the current situation much, but having been involved in it
> for some considerable time, I would suggest you either learn to live with it,
> or possibly ignore qmail, and find a decent mailer with a decent license.
When I was looking for a MTA, I had to start from scratch anyway -- no
prior investment of any kind. After some initial investigation qmail
looked IMHO by far the best. Even though I personally don't like
DJB's coding style, I get a very strong impression that qmail has been
engineered, possibly with the aid of formal, mathematically correct
methods.
By contrast, looking at the sendmail spaghetti and other sendmail-ish
MTAs and their configuration language sent a shiver down my spine ;-)
People who have a big investment in sendmail will want to stick with
it and they possibly should.
I have been using qmail on my other systems (Slackware) for more than
a year now with excellent results. IMHO, new systems would be far better
off with qmail -- let us at least have the option.
Regards
--
Manfred
------------------------------------------------------------------
To believe what has not occurred in history will not occur at all,
is to argue disbelief in the dignity of man. -- Mahatma Gandhi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: