Russell Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 15 January 2001 at 15:18:10 -0500
> 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.
A "patch" is also a recognized way to make an upgrade.
> 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 think this is a very bad idea. My primary reason is that it's
easier to apply a patch against updated main code than it is to
integrate the changes from that updated main code into a standalone
program. Also, some things are much better implemented as a change to
the existing programs, rather than as an additional layer of
programs.
--
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon/
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
