Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
>
> Levente Farkas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > but (as always) I prefer freedom and the chance for choice. that's what
> > I realy request from rh (and waiting for it). if there is more jurnaling fs
> > than give _me_ the chance to choice.
>
> Sure, when they're ready.
what is ready ? kernel-2.4 was ready at the time of 7.0 ?
when it is requested by many (ok what does it mean "many") people that
put it into (at least) preview. I suppose you see rh's kernel spec file.
I know rh put a huge amount of work into it that's what most people
would like to save (in other case I can put together the whole system
or distro) and I don't want to reinvent the wheel and find out why rh
do this and this in the spec file.
again I'm not vote for raiser this mail's just about my principles.
> > that's another quiestion that me or other user need some "education"
> > about these chance, give the user a help or an install manual and
> > most people would read and accept some "well known knowledgeable"
> > people's advice or if there are more such than choose. that's what
> > I ask. like more support from rh for postfix when even rh use it why
> > it's not included in the core distro (just sendmail)
>
> They conflict, which isn't acceptable for the core components. Thus,
> postfix stays in Powertools FTTB.
what does it mean conflict ? that I can't install both ? I suppose those
who wanna choose postfix knows what the purpose of it. anyway when I
wrote "support" I mean just "think about it" i.e. when I request postfix
and qmail "support" what I'd like to see, that if I already have an
installed mta (not all just "suppoted") than the next distro's updater
do _not_ install sendmail which overwrites eg /usr/sbin/sendmail.
I ask it from about rh 5.0.
when I remove linuxconf do not reintall it...
qmail's licence another question which was discussed a few times several
years ago. but the most general mtas (supported) can be detected. when
redhat use(d) qmail and postfix as their mta IMHO it's not a big ask.
> > the same apply for the gnome vs kde game even if I prefer gnome (ok
> > now both are supported, but once upon a time..).
>
> QT/KDE wasn't nearly open at the time - QT had significant,
> non-acceptable restrictions (no commercial use, no fixes or other
> patches allowed).
that was just a few example and I explain "support" above.
-- Levente http://petition.eurolinux.org/index_html
"The only thing worse than not knowing the truth is
ruining the bliss of ignorance."
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
