On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 03:33:43PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Joerg Jaspert: > > First - the packaging is nowhere near the standard Debian aspires to in the > > archive: > > > > Qmail is an MTA and as such should follow Debian Policy (for example Section > > 11.6). It's therefore not a very good start that an MTA package needs > > additional packages (qmail-run) installed to perform the minimal tasks > > required of mail-transport-agent, and yet another package (fastforward) to > > support /etc/aliases. > > Yuck. I wasn't aware of that. So the security discussion was kind of > a red herring, after all.
Hi, how exactly is that a policy violation? Please see the answer to that paragraph in my reply (including full quote) to the rejection mail http://lists.debian.org/debian-wnpp/2008/09/msg00055.html On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 10:36:07PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > Hmm, the MTA package actually is qmail-run, as can be read from the > README.Debian's in the qmail-run and qmail packages. And qmail-run > needs the qmail package, which provides the qmail programs and queue > structure, as well as the fastforward package, which provides support > for the /etc/aliases database. I can't see anything wrong with this, to > the contrary, the modularity of the packages provides more flexibility, > e.g.: > > o users can install the qmail package without the qmail-run package to > configure qmail as MTA manually, next to another MTA package already > installed on the system > o users can install the qmail package without the qmail-run package if > they wish to use some programs from the qmail package, e.g. > qmail-popup and qmail-pop3d, and wish to have a different default > MTA installed, such as postfix > o users can disable the /etc/aliases support, and switch to a different > alias handling if they like; the package providing the /etc/aliases > database support can then be removed from the system I still think this is a good thing, providing valuable flexibility to the users. What problem do you see? Is it that the packages are modularised, and not a single monolithic qmail package? Is it the name?, should the 'qmail-run' MTA package named 'qmail', and the current 'qmail' package 'qmail-core' or so? BTW, I maintain several packages in the Debian archive already that do just the same, a package containing the programs, and a separate package that provides the service. So I can happily run bincimap next to dovecot, and twoftpd next to some other ftp server, on the same machine. Users repeatedly request such thing, e.g. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg01308.html I know about that opinion http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/08/msg01329.html but actually nothing came up within three years http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=500176 Regards, Gerrit. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
