Jason R. Mastaler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Russell can note them at qmail.org, and tell your customers "Install
> > this patch to use my software"?
>
> I won't even consider this. For one it would discourage folks from
> trying my app if their qmail required patching to use it.
I was unaware that this whole discussion originated out of TMDA until
someone else noted it to me in private mail. This does, of course,
change things. However, requiring a patch is not as bad as you think --
qmail-scanner, for instance, requires Bruce Guenter's QMAILQUEUE patch
in its default installation.
> Also, many users have no control over how their ISP or company manages
> qmail and so they would be shut out.
How many ISPs give their customers shell accounts for mail access? This
particular argument, I think, is a red herring.
> (I also think djb uses the qmail "patch farm" as an excuse for not
> broadening the main distribution, but I won't go there.)
I'm not sure he uses this as an excuse; from his comments here, he
simply considers most of the available patches to be pointless,
insecure, bloated, improperly written, improperly designed, or some
combination of the above.
Charles
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Cazabon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
