On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 10:43:01PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 28 January 2005 07:42 am, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> > Looks like three packages are providing a slightly different flavour
> > of qmail:
> actually i still dont know why we have three packages when we could EASILY
> have made one that just works with USE={mysql,ldap}
>
> and by 'still' i mean i asked this question probably two years ago and no one
> had a good reason
I've answered this question previously.
The problem comes down to the fact that the patches for MySQL/LDAP are
_very_ extensive, so much so that it's impossible to see where to put
some of the other patches, even when merging by hand.They are effectively forks of the original qmail, but just distributed as patches due to DJB's license. There has some talk on abstracting what the mysql/ldap/postgres/... patches all do, and then providing a better way to switch between them, but that died off due to the quantity of work involved. > which is to say i will want to stab anyone who creates a virtual/qmail I'm all in favour of virtual/qmail, provided that all packages that depend on it are tested (or verified via source inspection) that they will work with all qmails. Some of them won't as they modify files in /var/qmail/control that are totally ignored under the mysql/ldap qmails. -- Robin Hugh Johnson E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page : http://www.orbis-terrarum.net/?l=people.robbat2 ICQ# : 30269588 or 41961639 GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgpUlqyP3s2hP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
