Mark Delany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 5 May 1999 at 15:19:36 -0700
> Perhaps it's yet again the case of an rpm-styled installed doing
> "almost the right thing". (I confess to continually seeing reasons
> why DjB was/is so paranoid about others packaging up qmail).
Yes, BUT...*everything else* on this system (that I didn't write
myself) was installed from RPMs, and it *all* works. I've never made
an RPM myself, and I don't mean to cast aspersions on those who made
the qmail RPMs. But the evidence suggests either that qmail is
somehow harder to install right than anything else (including
sendmail), or else that the RPMs for qmail are all badly made.
If qmail is harder to install, is it for good, solid reasons, or is it
the strain of attempting to satisfy Dan's whims? Clearly there *are*
some good solid reasons for some of the strange things about qmail.
Since a number of different people have made qmail RPMs, it seems
somewhat unlikely that they're *all* bad.
Dan may believe his restrictions on distribution serve to protect
qmail's reputation (by preventing a bad distribution from having
security holes, for example). I'm quite sure, from the questions and
problems I see people having, that in fact qmail's reputation is being
seriously damaged by the lack of standard binary packages for it,
especially a really clean RPM for the Linux world.
Oh well. Doesn't interfere with *my* use of it, I can install it from
the tarball just fine. And I've managed (just barely) to avoid any
emotional connection with qmail's broader success, so I'm not letting
the other aspects bother me. I'm also not trying to maintain a few
dozen systems.
--
David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms
Join the 20th century before it's too late!
