Re: qmail and related packages in NEW
"Neil Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>>> Aside from these technical - and possibly fixable - problems, we
>>> (as in the ftpteam) have discussed the issue, and we are all of
>>> the opinion that qmail should die, and not receive support from
>>> Debian. As such we *STRONGLY* ask you to reconsider uploading
>>> those packages.
So the "we" in the above statement includes the *entire* FTP Team? The
Security Team has responded that it has no objections to adding qmail to
Lenny. Who speaks for the QA and Release Teams (or for that matter, the
*entire* Debian Developer community, and the user community??)
>>> Qmail is dead upstream
It may be your opinion that qmail is "dead upstream". My opinion (that of
the qmail user community, and the original author) is that it works just as
great now as it did in 1998 and has not needed an update!
>>>and requires a whole set of patches to even begin to work in
>>> the manner expected of a modern MTA.
It needs configuration certainly. That is what this Debian package would
> Packages that are dead upstream are always going to be a headache for
> the security team and the release team. Bit rot is a constant source of
> new bugs as all the packages around the dead one(s) continue to be
> developed and improved.
The Security Team has met and announced that they have no objections to
adding qmail to Lenny.
Do you offer any other logical (not emotional) reasons that it should not