On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 11:19:37PM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Gerrit Pape writes:
> > If there is interest in having qmail in the debian-distribution, perhaps I
> > get Dan J. Bernstein's approval sometime.
>
> Produce two packages:
> qmail, which is a 100% debian-compatible binary package which puts
> files in the locations required by Debian.
> qmail-compat, which is required by qmail, and which uses symlinks
> to ensure that all files are found in the locations Dan has
> mandated.
>
> Those two packages satisfy Dan's requirements for qmail distributors,
> and satisfies Debian's requirements for locations of binaries, man
> pages, and configuration files.
>
This does my single qmail package (man pages are not linked to
/var/qmail/man). I do not see the benefit in having two packages: a user who
installs the package named 'qmail' without qmail-compat, breaking dependencies
manually, could be left in a nearly not usable qmail installation (the
debian-compatible one) without a /var/qmail tree. This may produce
confusion.
Installing the debian package 'qmail', I did, it will be fully usable for
experts, even if fastforward, dot-forward and qmail-run is not installed.
> > Getting the packages into debian is the easier part, I think, that is what
> > lintian reports as errors by now:
>
> I thought Debian was foolishly talking about removing non-free?
They did, but there is no decision yet, non-free will surely be in woody.
> about Debian compatibility. You may as well produce a 100%
> djb-compatible vanilla qmail .deb.
>
Having two qmail debs is not good. So if there is a chance to create a
djb- _and_ debian-compatible package, let's do this one. If not, I will do a
unofficial djb-compatible vanilla dot-deb.
Gerrit.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
innominate AG
networking people
fon: +49.30.308806-0 fax: -77 web: http://innominate.de pgp: /pgp/gpa
