Peter Green wrote:
> Okay, this is a *really* *sick* suggestion, but would providing binary
> patches violate the djb license? IOW, qmail-1.03-1.i386.rpm would be the
> qmail package (as described at <http://cr.yp.to/qmail/var-qmail.html>),
> while qmail-patches-0.01-1.i386.rpm would be a big patchfile that would
> *binary* patch the appropriate programs.
This might be even worse, but still a thought: Install source RPMS,
patch them, build and install them, then remove the development tools as
part of the post-install script. This would also work for things (like
crypto) where distribution seems to be limited to the source, rather
than binaries. Probably an evil hack, but it should be do-able...
--
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy
and taste good with ketchup."
