[EMAIL PROTECTED]@geocities.com writes:n
>
> Does that mean that anyone can create any kind of a cockamamie package
> installation requirement, and use that as an example to add more code
> bloat to the system's package manager?
>
I'm sorry, isn't that what package managers are for? Programmers have
enough to worry about without wondering whether or not Redhat will
decide that their ideas are 'cockamamie', which in this case, they
clearly are not.
> > Who wants additional code running on their systems when
> > you don't need it? Why doesn't RPM provide for a package supplied
> > verification tool? Then someone (even DJB) could write such a tool
> > that could be exec'ed by RPM. There are a million solutions to this
> > problem, only one of which involves modifications to qmail.
>
> That sounds reasonable, except that I do not believe that it would satisfy
> djb's requirements.
You're wrong. Leave those 40 bytes out of the checksum, and you have a
verification tool. This allows you to distribute qmail binaries under
the current license, using idedit. Or just always have your
verification tool reinstall the qmail binaries. Big deal. Both of these
ways are perfectly valid under the present qmail license, as I
understand it.
sdb
