Marc Haber wrote:
On Apr 11, 2003 at 10:47, Philipp Kern praised the llamas by saying: > Package: wnpp > Version: N/A; reported 2003-04-11 > Severity: wishlist> > * Package name : exim-mysql> Version : 3.36 > Upstream Author : Mark Baker <mark@mnb.org.uk> (debian exim upstream) This is wrong. Philip Hazel is the upstream author. Mark Baker is the maintainer for the exim packages. I suggest you talk to Mark and talk to people on the exim4 mailing list, exim4debian@logic.univie.ac.at (CCed).Full ACK. Having more than one source package from the same upstream sources is bad. The right way would be to modify Mark's package and asking him to incorporate the pages.
I had already done something similar (but didn't upload it because of the then problems with crypto in main, and also the licencing issue with openSSL). I abandoned it completely when people started working on exim4.
Having two source packages from the same upstream source, with two maintainers, is my main objection to this package.
Another problem with it is that it is a fairly abritrary selection of features - mysql, but not pgsql, not ldap (even though that's in the standard exim package), and not perl. It's built with exactly the features used for a particular system; I don't believe such a thing should be in debian - apart from anything else it gives a bad precedent.
But anyway, the future is exim4.
I agree, which is why I have stopped making major changes to the exim 3 package. A third objection I have to this package is that it will encourage peopleto use exim 3 for new deployments. I believe anyone setting up a new mail system, certainly one complicated enough to require mysql, should
not be using exim 3.