On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Peter Green wrote:
> Okay, this is a *really* *sick* suggestion, but would providing binary
> patches violate the djb license?
IANAL :-)
> 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.
Apart from the silliness of this, it means that we cannot use RPM to
verify the installed qmail package.
For the record, I have even considered blowing out our install time by
distributing qmail as source rather than binary. Install the source,
[patch it to our heart's content], install the compiler, make qmail,
remove the compiler, reboot.
> (Note that the qmail RPM in e-smith appears to violate the description on
> the web page shown above. Specifically, the RPM doesn't:
>
> * Install dot-forward and fastforward (yes, these are in separate packages;
> this might be arguable),
One would hope so. This strikes me as a particularly silly licensing
requirement - why should I be forced to install these packages whether I
want them or not? I don't want /etc/aliases - I have grown up.
> * Create /var/qmail/rc as specified in the third ``effect'',
> * Create /var/qmail/alias/.qmail-default
But we do (sometimes) create it later on.
> Anyway, I find this interesting enough that I will probably follow up on the
> qmail mailing list.
Oh dear, do you have to?
--
Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.e-smith.org (development) http://www.e-smith.com (corporate)
Phone: +1 (613) 368 4376 or 564 8000 Fax: +1 (613) 564 7739
e-smith, inc. 1500-150 Metcalfe St, Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1 Canada
