[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: "The Debian exim 4 packages suck badly" on exim-users@exim.org

Le vendredi 18 février 2005 à 14:15 -0600, Steve Greenland a écrit :
> On 18-Feb-05, 09:06 (CST), Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote: 
> > Le vendredi 18 f??vrier 2005 ?? 08:37 -0600, Steve Greenland a ??crit :
> > > No where in the Debconf note does it say which is "the upstream way".
> > 
> > This has nothing to do in a debconf note.
> Sigh. Did you read the thread? W. Ballard wrote:
> > The exim4 config asks you if you want itty bitty or one monolothic
> > config file. It offers you the option of doing it the upstream way.

How is it relevant?

> And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something like:
>    The single monolithic file is the normal upstream configuration,
>    while the other choice is a Debian innovation that works better with
>    large installations or ISPs needing to support many virtual domains.
> For newbies, this is the first MTA installation they will have ever
> seen. Help 'em out, for Pete's sake.

Such a question will never help them. Why the hell would a newbie care
of a package diverging from upstream (if he understands what an upstream
is)? The newbie wants a working installation, full stop. That's why this
question isn't high priority: it isn't even shown to the newbie.

And the fact exim4 diverges from upstream has *absolutely nothing* to do
in a debconf note. Debconf is here to promt users, not to document
changes. We have README.Debian and changelog.Debian for that.
 .''`.           Josselin Mouette        /\./\
: :' :           josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `'                        joss@debian.org
  `-  Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

Reply to: