On Friday 26 September 2003 22:10, Vincent Danen wrote: > On Fri Sep 26, 2003 at 08:23:24PM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote: > > can you put exim in contribs at least ? > > There's never been an interest before. I've been maintining exim > packages for about 1.5-2 years now, and I never even knew anyone was > interested. IIRC, I had asked about putting it in contribs when I > first built the package (since it wasn't wanted in main) and the > answer I got then was two MTAs were enough. Never bothered since.
sorry, i was not here at this time. I should have search the archives before asking. > If someone wants to put it in contribs, that's fine. I'll still > maintain it on rpmhelp.net because, right now, you can grab exim for > 9.0-9.2, and instead of maintaining for "cooker" I maintain for > stable releases. do you think it is some much troubles to maintain it in contribs ? I mean, this is just rebuilding it in a cooker environnement. And it doesn't prevent you to rebuild in 9.0-9.2 > > this will be easier to find it . Dispertion of rpm is not good, > > this force people to search too much and this gives them bad habits > > ( downloading semi official rpm ). > > Putting it in contribs will allow it to be tested by more people, > > and integrated to cooker. > > I disagree. PLF doesn't have a problem with people using their > packages. yes, but plf is bigger than rpmhelp. if you take a look at easy urpmi, you will see that a lot of repositorie exist, some of them providing rpms already in contribs, and this is not easy to keep track of who do what. And i am pretty sure that plf would not exist if we were able to put the package in contribs. > IIRC, if you were to search in Club's rpm database or > rpm2html listing or whatever it is, you'll find exim listed under > rpmhelp.net. yes, but, i think we should not encourage people to search rpm on a website. urpmq and rpmdrake are here for this reason. How can people choose between your great package, checked with rpmlint, and others packagers made by alien ? > Are you saying that everything on rpmhelp.net, PLF, Texstar's stuf, > etc. should go in contribs? yes, and no. Texstar is building backport. Plf is for stuff that cannot go in contribs. I think that a repository than can be put in contribs should be in contribs , in order to not have the apt-get.org dispertion effect. > I think separate rpm repositories that specialize in certain things > is good. It depends on what is the specialisation. But, even if exim is put in contribs, nothing stop you to provides backport for people who want it. In fact, more and more people are interested in providing backport , so, there is a place for a global repository offering sane backport. But, having it in contribs will give more visibility. And, this is the first step toward inclusion in main. > > And, we will also be able to integrate some tools ( spamassassin, > > amavis ) more closely with exim. > > There really is nothing stopping you from doing that now. It doesn't > need to be in contribs for that. if someone do a spamassassin-exim package, this person cannot put it in contribs, since it has a unresolved dependancy ( exim ). A package in contribs can only depend on main and contrib. now, i fully undestand that you may have too much work to maintains exim in 2 places. -- Michaël Scherer
