* Steve Langasek ([email protected]) [090823 11:32]: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:05:50PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > b. There are lots of issues why qmail doesn't look too competitive, > > like the static user ids, > > I don't see any other mention of static user ids in this discussion. Can > you explain what the problem is there? Are these static IDs that have been > allocated in accordance with Debian Policy?
They are. "Not too competive" isn't a translation of "we need to disallow the upload", but if I need to choose a MTA that would be a reason for me to take a closer look at competiting products. I think this is similar to > >, unbundling of outgoing messages etc. > > This is a good reason to not use qmail, but unlike the delayed bounce > problem I don't think it's critical. for that. > > c. There are some (small) issues like that newaliases is provided by > > another package. However, any of these issues has an obvious > > resolution path, so they shouldn't be blocking. > > What other issues besides the newaliases issue do you include here? > > I think the newaliases policy violation should have also been listed as a > blocker for NEW inclusion, on the ballot. I'm ok with that. Currently, nothing is on top of my mind (perhaps anymore). At least I cannot remember anything where I said "this is totally bad, and I haven't read a patch for it". Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
