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

Re: qmail and related packages in NEW

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 08:51:01PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:12:42 +0000
> Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org> wrote:
> > Lacking any response, I can only guess what the reason for the delay
> > is.
> IMHO, the response has been given and your replies have not provided
> sufficient grounds to change the response. Personally, I think that is
> entirely fair.
> > >From my point of view this reason is questionable, and I stated so
> > >in my
> > response to the reject mail.  Receiving no response within eight weeks
> > tells me that discussing doesn't work.
> Discussions only work when new information is available. Rehashing the
> same points in the hope that repetition wins the day is just boring.

Hi, surely new information was made available, see my reply to the
rejection mail

Additionally to addressing technical issues, I took the advise from
ftpmasters and reconsidered re-uploading the packages.  After two
months, and receiving several mails from users asking about the progress
of the inclusion into Debian main after qmail was placed into the public
domain, I re-read some public mails like

This made me think there're people interested in having the packages
included, so here we are.

> > On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:36:07PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jul 06, 2008 at 02:19:30PM +0000, 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.
> > > >
> > > > Qmail is dead upstream and requires a whole set of patches to even
> > > > begin to work in the manner expected of a modern MTA.  Given
> > > > this, the fact that this means there is also no upstream security
> > > > support, and the fact that Debian already contains at least three
> > > > reasonable MTAs, we see no need to add qmail to the archive. So -
> > > > please reconsider if it really helps Debian to have those
> > > > packages. Also feel free to start a public discussion on
> > > > debian-devel@lists.debian.org about the issue, including any
> > > > relevant information from this email, in order to gather opinions
> > > > from other project members.
> To me, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable and calm response to
> your original question.
> 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.
> > > We all know, I guess, that there's lots of different opinions on the
> > > quality and usability of qmail.  There're people thinking like you,
> > > and other people, including me, that have a different opinion.  I
> > > respect your opinion, please respect ours too.  You're free to not
> > > install/use the packages.  I've been contacted by several people
> > > since I announced my intention to package qmail, speaking in favor
> > > of the inclusion into Debian.

> There are always different opinions. What matters is whether there is
> any new information to bring to the discussion.

>From my experience, starting a discussion about what the ftpmasters
wrote above leads to nowhere, so I refrained from doing so and talked
about opinions.  To me it's clear that upstream isn't dead, I see signs
of him doing development on dnscurve for example.  Also qmail has
security support, not only that, it has a security guarantee.  And it
doesn't need a whole set of patches, I know that, I use my packages
since years.
Finally, the source package is netqmail, which is created by a team of
valuable qmail contributors, maintained and supported by them.  This
information is included in debian/copyright and the README file.

Regards, Gerrit.

Reply to: