Re: [gentoo-dev] qmail-scanner depends on qmail (what about qmail-ldap?)

[Benjamin Coles]

Andrew,
	Much apologies on the ebuilds, I must admit that these are my favorite
packages to maintain (qmail-ldap). It is quite hard to get some stuff
done with the ebuilds even when it consists of minor changes. I noticed
that you were in need of help on the ebuilds. I am available online as
sj7trunks and you may message me since I am very interested in helping
people get Gentoo into the mainstream. I recently lost my job so I've
added this to my list of to do and I'm also working on an LDAP book for
Prentice Hall so I'm fairly confident I'll be able to help you out.

Thanks,
Benjamin Coles

On Sun, 2004-03-28 at 00:17, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 04:33:23PM +1000, Andrew Ross wrote:
> > Please note that I'm not recommending that you use these instead of the
> > chroot.de ones (for one things, chroot.de is more up to date!).
> Apart from the chroot.de ones not having ANY of the mainstream gentoo
> qmail stuff.
>
> > I understand that the qmail-ldap maintainer, Benjamin Coles (sj7trunks),
> > is a volunteer (just like all the other Gentoo folk). I know we can't
> > expect the same reponse as we'd expect from a paid employee. At the same
> > time, I think the current qmail-ldap situation in Gentoo is appauling -
> > we are making it extremely difficult for sysadmins to make the move to
> > Gentoo, both technically, and at a management level (how can I sell
> > Gentoo as a mail server when the STABLE qmail-ldap ebuilds in portage
> > are broken, and have been for months?).
> I agree the state of gentoo's qmail-ldap leaves a lot to be desired, and
> we are all ears on help, but time is still tight on us. I maintain the
> main qmail package and offer some help to the other qmail-{ldap,mysql}
> folk.
>
> > Please don't take this as a flame, or a slight against sj7trunks. I'm
> > not suggesting that he shouldn't be the qmail-ldap maintainer, but
> > perhaps we need one (or more) others to assist?
> If somebody with time could go thru all the open bugs, collate them and
> ensure the functionality between qmail-ldap and the main qmail (latest
> ~x86 build) is similiar (including my conf-* stuff), it would go a long
> way towards getting something better into the tree for you.