Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> I'm considering removing the entire patches section from
> www.qmail.org.
>
> Why? Because a patch implies that something is wrong, and needs to be
> fixed. However, when someone produces a "patch" for smtp-auth, that
> implies that qmail-smtpd has a problem that the patch fixes. I'd
> rather see people steal the necessary parts of Makefile, and Dan's
> library code, and create a stand-alone "qmail-smtpd-auth" program.
>
> I've found a couple of places where Dan decries patches:
>
> http://msgs.securepoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9812/214/1/2/1/3/2/1/2/1.html
> http://msgs.SecurePoint.com/cgi-bin/get/qmail9905/164/3.html
>
> Somewhere he recommends that people make a copy of the necessary parts
> of his code and distribute the changed code as a separate package.
> Can anybody find it for me? I've failed to find it in nearly an hour
> of archive searching.
>
> I'm not going to do it unless a majority of the authors of patches are
> willing to repackage them as standalone programs. So if there's a
> firestorm of protest from those authors, I won't do it.
>
I would leave it as it is.
Most people whom see patches assume in qmail's case that these are
additions, as they are all described as such, and none imply any errors
/ problems.
qmail has grown in popularity with these patches, and as long as they
are described as they are then it will continue to grow.
I use a few (5) of these and would continue to.
Thats my 2 euro worth!
Greg
> --
> -russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | Government is the
> Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | fictitious entity by which
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everyone seeks to live at
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | everyone else's expense.
