I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do something
like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches, or upgrades, or
anything else. They call them Modules and have a central repository that
users can go and search from. I think this would be ideal for qmail.org
site...
Just my $0.02
Laurence
--
Laurence Brockman
Unix Administrator
Videon Cablesystems Alberta Inc
10450-178 St.
Edmonton, AB
T5S 1S2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(780) 486-6527
-----Original Message-----
From: Erwin Hoffmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 1:39 AM
To: Henning Brauer; qmail-list
Subject: Re: A firestorm of protest?
At 23:46 15.1.2001 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 03:18:10PM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote:
>> 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.
>
>I'd just rename it from patches to "additional functionality" or something
>like that.
>
I guess, thats the correct approach. It would be very helpful for the qmail
community to "organize" the patches - or have them organized. From my point
of view - actually how I organize the mails coming from this mailing list -
one should differentiate between "Add-Ones" (eg. scripts working within
.qmail and the brand new Log-Analyzer in perl) leaving the product
unchanged and "Miscellaneous enhancements" covering the patches against the
code. Both should be organized by feature and/or qmail module.
This would help to keep track of the patches. When I initially created the
SPAMCONTROL patch, I had the same problem like everybody has: Here and
there is a useful piece of code (=patch) which I integrated into a larger
set. But this is not as trivial as it seems.
While qmail 1.03 is since years in the field SMTP development is going
further (eg. STARTTLS and SASL) and of cause, everybody is interesting
employing those features. It is necessary to integrate those enhancements
(even though they are not coming from DJB and might be as complex as
qmail-ldap) in order to be competitve.
In addition, since qmail is prefered by ISPs, there requirements are
different wrt the end user. Therefore, we have today packages like
vpopmail, sqwebmail and others which enhence qmail and it's complexity
significantly. Maybe it would worthwile to consider this as well as an
"organizational" item for qmail.org.
cheers.
eh.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| fff hh http://www.fehcom.de Dr. Erwin Hoffmann |
| ff hh |
| ff eee hhhh ccc ooo mm mm mm Wiener Weg 8 |
| fff ee ee hh hh cc oo oo mmm mm mm 50858 Koeln |
| ff ee eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm |
| ff eee hh hh cc oo oo mm mm mm Tel 0221 484 4923 |
| ff eeee hh hh ccc ooo mm mm mm Fax 0221 484 4924 |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
