Sam writes: > I don't recall many questions on the list from Debian users and how > confused they are with the different location of all the files. Debian didn't distribute the binary package. They knew they were violating the var-qmail compatibility requirements. > As far as vendor's traditional packaging, they are not forks, but > site-specific customizations. Whatever you call it, the result is a huge hassle for the users. ---Dan
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distrib... D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distrib... ddb
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distrib... Sam
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distrib... ddb
- Example of the anti-fax effect D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Example of the anti-fax ef... Sam
- Re: Example of the anti-fax ef... Russell Nelson
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distrib... Scott Schwartz
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distrib... Mate Wierdl
- Re: Why Red Hat is not distrib... Bart Blanquart
- Re: System integrity verificat... D. J. Bernstein
- Re: System integrity verification ... Mate Wierdl
- Re: Frivolous forking Mate Wierdl
- Re: Frivolous forking Mate Wierdl
- Re: Frivolous forking John Gonzalez/netMDC admin
- Re: Frivolous forking Mate Wierdl
- Re: Frivolous forking D. J. Bernstein
- Re: Frivolous forking Russell Nelson
- Re: Frivolous forking Jos Backus
- RE: Frivolous forking Jan Mikkelsen
- Running the qmail system as root D. J. Bernstein
