Thus spake David Dyer-Bennet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > 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.
> A "patch" is also a recognized way to make an upgrade.
The word "upgrade" also implies that there is something wrong or
inferior with the original qmail.
That said, while converting the patches into standalone packages would
be better for political reasons, it would make it harder for me to
maintain my qmail, because that is basically stock qmail with the
AOL-DNS-fix, starttls and another small patch. Merging patches is far
easier than merging divergent codebases. So, in effect, the changed
policy would force me to download the qmail source code four times,
run diff to get patches, and then merge those patches.
I don't think political decisions should make life harder for all of us.
I'd rather see www.qmail.org be changed so that you would have to click
through a banner page that clearly states that none of those patches is
necessary to make qmail any more secure, more reliable or faster.
Please don't cripple my work with qmail in the vain attempt to make
stupid people understand. They won't. That's why they are stupid in
the first place. Russ, if you desire, please put a few explaining words
over the patch section, and then proceed to ignore the idiots. It will
make your life easier and the idiots will die out or move back to
Exchange and it will save all of us a lot of stress.
Felix
