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 <email@example.com> 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
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
> > > > firstname.lastname@example.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
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.