On Saturday 14 May 2005 13:05, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: > Oops, I accidentally replied in private. > > On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 01:02:47PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote: > > When can we upgrade to Sarge? It seems to be frozen right now, and I sure > > could use the newer software. > > That's a good question. Not that "frozen" means that packages are still > getting updated, but they are supposed to be "only bugfixes".
OK. > > > 1. Install enough software to be able to use dh-perl-make: > > > > http://perl.org.il/pipermail/perl/2003-December/003663.html > > > > I'll need make and stuff. I'd rather not contaminate the perl directories > > with modules I install using perl -MCPAN. And not all Perl modules are > > available in the Debian pool. > > You can install a debian build environment in a chroot jail of an > existing system. It seems that the current policy is not to hold the > build environment on Eskimo. Hmmm... I think that not having a build environment is a bit overrated as a security measure. A prospective intruder can always install binaries he cross-compiled (or just compiled) on his own machine. But not having a build environment (not even make, which is practically harmless) causes a lot of frustration and problems to the users there. I call this "Security by Hurdles", which is a good measure, but sometimes you need to say "Enough is enough". > > > 2. I'd like to convert the mailing lists from ezmlm to something like > > Siesta: > > > > http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2004/02/05/siesta.html > > mlmmj ? :-) > > Anyway, I do miss archives for the lists (pointed from the page, preferably > searchable, but if not, at least something like mailman's pipermail) > > I'm now playing with lurker. > I haven't heard of them. If there's a comparison or overview of mailman, siesta, and all others, I'd appreciate it. > > ezmlm works only on qmail, and moving a mailing list to a different > > prefix or domain is practically an impossible task. > > > > 3. After, the conversion to Siesta or whatever is done, I'd like to ditch > > qmail for postfix. qmail is not too bad, but its license is very > > problematic, and not being free software, makes us look really bad. > > postfix is also nice. > > > > For other anti-qmail discussion see: > > > > http://perl.org.il/pipermail/perl/2004-October/005989.html > > > > http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.72853.10 > > I personally don't know qmail well. Is there a qmail doctor in the > crowd? Has it been working well in the recent year? > It has been working very well. But that's not the point. It's not free software, and upgrading it would be painful, should it be needed. It's also unmaintained by the author, and every single thing we'd like to add will require a patch to the source. While we can install netQmail, which aims to be a Working Overloaded Qmail, it is not supported by the author. > AFAIK, it's working and thus there's basically no reason to change it. > The only valid argument is the use of non-free software. But this is not > new and it was known when the server was set up. I think that using qmail for a server of Hamakor, the Israeli Society for _Free Software_ and _Open Source Code_ makes us look bad. How about setting up a Win2K3+IIS+ASP+Exchange+MS-SQL server? ;-) Regards, Shlomi Fish --------------------------------------------------------------------- Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.shlomifish.org/ Tcl is LISP on drugs. Using strings instead of S-expressions for closures is Evil with one of those gigantic E's you can find at the beginning of paragraphs.
