| 1 |
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:34:26 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michael Hanselmann <hansmi@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote: |
| 5 |
> > due to massive code duplication in netqmail, qmail-ldap, |
| 6 |
> > qmail-mysql, mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for qmail |
| 7 |
> > i have started to move functionality into a first qmail.eclass |
| 8 |
> > draft. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I already proposed moving the prime functionality into an eclass and |
| 11 |
> it was refused back then. qmail-mysql and qmail-ldap may get removed |
| 12 |
> soon. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
qmail-ldap will not be removed for sure, since i maintain it currently. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> And as the netqmail ebuild maintainer, I want the ebuild to be as |
| 18 |
> simple as possible, that is, no external dependencies where possible. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
so, you suggest it is a better way to duplicate tons of code in 4 |
| 21 |
ebuilds? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> > Attached is the eclass and a sample how to use it with netqmail. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> It seems like you aren't interested in communication with the |
| 27 |
> maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
appearantly, you are subscribed to gentoo-dev. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Greets, |
| 33 |
> Michael |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
On a sidenote, qmail has a huge amount of open bugs, and has generally |
| 37 |
gotten no love in the past time, so i wonder if it actually was/is |
| 38 |
maintained. |
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives