Maybe i didn't expressed myself clearly enough :) A patch is a patch not a binary distributed package on which you do not have any control, and if you need to change something you need go back to compiling from sources which we already do anyway.
A toaster will continue to exist beyond the binary qmail versions released since a toaster is in essence a collection of multiple tools that work together to compose the modern mail service that we are all used to these days. One more personal conclusion: The fact that i know so much today regarding how qmail works and e-mail in general is because i needed to build it from sources instead of "rpm -ivh qmail" ;) > Daniel, you are really messed all the things up: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I don't see much difference between then and now, it's the same thing. >> Giving Qmail to the public domain, in my opinion, is a bad move. Now x, >> y >> and z versions of Qmail will start to pop-up each and everyone of them >> with their installation methods and alterations to the original code. > > Yup. Actually, they already do. Someone call them "patches". someone > 'toasters'. I guess that Shupp is one of the X Y or Z's :) > >> >> I don't also see a very big deal out of this because noone stoped you >> before to make yourself binary packages with your qmail if you needed a >> rapid deployment solution. > > [note this:] > > As long as you did not redistributed those >> binary packages. > > or source packages. or anything modified. > >> I would rather see a new version of qmail with some feature updates and >> bug fixes. > > yeah, that's the first step. > > Actually, releasing qmail in such a way does give a way to people or > groups like Bill or the people ho do use his toaster to make source OR > binary bundles instead of installing dev packages like crazy. > > Boris Pavlov >
