On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Sam wrote:
> > That's not an answer, that's an evasion.
>
> No, that's your answer right there. This proposed feature is not going to
> benefit anything else except Qmail. You do not stick features into system
> management tools unless there's a clear benefit that will profit at least
> a good fraction of the system that you are administering.
You're subtly incorrect.
The benefit is to anyone and everyone who wants to be able to install
djb-allowable rpm-compatible qmail packages.
qmail as a package doesn't benefit at all.
> > Just like me responding "qmail is good enough already for thousands of
> > very different installations, so why doesn't RedHat change RPM?"
>
> Because Red Hat does not need Qmail,
You're not reading what I'm writing. You're reading what you want to
read. I acknowledge that the above statement is a useless statement
to make.
> and it uses something that's good
> enough for millions of very different installations.
Why in the world are you spending time on the qmail list if you feel
sendmail is "good enough"?
> > I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if the binary file editor will
> > break rpm --verify, then why not fork and extension of rpm which will
> > fix that? It's open source. It's allowed. That's the whole argument
> > behind open source.
>
> Well, go ahead and do it. But unless you get Red Hat to accept your
> additions, it will be a wasted effort.
Not at all. The resulting hypothetical package can be distributed freely.
Remember, RPM is GPL'd.
You're confusing RedHat with djb. RedHat can't do anything to stop anyone
from forking rpm.
--
John White
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Public Key: http://www.triceratops.com/john/public-key.pgp
