Re: Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

2009-08-23 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Sam" == Sam Hartman writes: > "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes: Steve> Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce message. Dan Steve> documents this in a subordinate clause of his qmail Steve> reliability FAQ. That means: if your qmail is bouncing mail Steve> and at

Re: Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

2009-08-23 Thread Sam Hartman
> "Steve" == Steve Langasek writes: Steve> Qmail does not value the contents of a bounce Steve> message. Dan documents this in a subordinate clause of his Steve> qmail reliability FAQ. That means: if your qmail is Steve> bouncing mail and at the same time, your system crashe

Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

2009-08-23 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 02:22:32AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > Certainly, I see a number of issues on > that I would not like to see > in any package in the archive, not just the delayed-reject bug, and I would > like to know from Gerrit which of t

Bug#510415: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

2009-08-23 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > I am concerned that this has gone to a vote without any actual > answers to the questions posed in > <20090812062208.gf9...@rzlab.ucr.edu>. I interpreted Andi's response as one answer, and the lack of any additional messages as an indication that there

Re: Bug#535645: Wrongfull removal of ia32-libs-tools

2009-08-23 Thread Don Armstrong
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009, Steve Langasek wrote: > I suggest the following resolution as a ballot option: [...] > Thoughts on this? I think this is a more complete option that what I had proposed; I'd like to see it replace my proposed option, unless someone else feels that the more limited option is

Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

2009-08-23 Thread Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 02:32:36AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:05:50PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > ignorance of rfc 3464 > > This is one that I would like to see more discussion about; I've definitely > found qmail's non-standard DSNs irksome, looking like convers

Re: Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

2009-08-23 Thread Andreas Barth
* Steve Langasek (vor...@debian.org) [090823 11:32]: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:05:50PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > b. There are lots of issues why qmail doesn't look too competitive, > > like the static user ids, > > I don't see any other mention of static user ids in this discussion. Can

Re: Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

2009-08-23 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 06:46:31AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > > We have experimental, though there is nothing in effect that prevents a > > maintainer to upload experimental packages to unstable atm... > Packages only in experimental are ignored by Release and Security, so that > would address p

Re: Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

2009-08-23 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 08:05:50PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > b. There are lots of issues why qmail doesn't look too competitive, > like the static user ids, I don't see any other mention of static user ids in this discussion. Can you explain what the problem is there? Are these static IDs th

Re: Call for votes on Bug#510415: tech-ctte: Qmail inclusion (or not) in Debian

2009-08-23 Thread Steve Langasek
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 09:00:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > I'm calling for a vote on the following options[1]: > | 1. Qmail is to be allowed into the archive without special > | preconditions. Ftpmaster should perform standard NEW processing for > | licensing, copyright, and general packagin