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

Re: Bug#457318: ITP: qmail -- a secure, reliable, efficient, simple message transfer agent

Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 05:54:32PM +0000, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
>> I fail to understand this ITP, and all the objections - wether
>> or not we SHOULD is not the point as I see it. It's a matter 
>> of CAN we.. ?

>  Well I see points where we have to ask if we _should_ support some
> kind of software, some questions we could ask is:
>  * is it possible to provide a sane default qmail configuration (the
>    basic 4 that exim and postfix provides in Debian seems to be a
>    minimum) ;

I do not think that is really necessary. I doubt there are lots of new
qmail installations nowadays by people that are not aready well versed
in its configuration.

>  * does it supports ipv6 (non ipv6 ready software that isn't ipv4 ready
>    should not _enter_ Debian nowadays) ;
>  * what does it brings wrt its alternatives to Debian, why is it better
>    that the exim, postfix or sendmail Debian already has.

If we think it is popular enough to ship in non-free, why not in main?
qmail propably still has a considerable user base, not requiring them
to /unnecessarily/ go the 'apt-get build' way seems to be a good thing.

OTOH if qmail afficionados won't use the package anyway since it will
be quite a bit different from upstream's default (FHS, not-using
non-main DJB software ucspi-tcp and daemontools.) there is not much
cu andreas
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'

Reply to: