| 1 |
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:02:00 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michael Hanselmann <hansmi@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote: |
| 5 |
> > qmail-ldap will not be removed for sure, since i maintain it |
| 6 |
> > currently. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Okay, my status there was outdated. We were at least discussing it at |
| 9 |
> some point in history. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> > > And as the netqmail ebuild maintainer, I want the ebuild to be as |
| 12 |
> > > simple as possible, that is, no external dependencies where |
| 13 |
> > > possible. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> > so, you suggest it is a better way to duplicate tons of code in 4 |
| 16 |
> > ebuilds? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I'll think about it. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> [...] |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> > On a sidenote, qmail has a huge amount of open bugs, and has |
| 23 |
> > generally gotten no love in the past time, so i wonder if it |
| 24 |
> > actually was/is maintained. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> qmail != netqmail. To my knowledge, we have only one outstanding bug |
| 27 |
> there, the one with man pages colliding, nothing critical. Since I |
| 28 |
> also have other things in life with higher priorities than Gentoo, it |
| 29 |
> has to wait. However, I should get to it during the week or at latest |
| 30 |
> two weeks. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
As it seems, you do not have the time and/or interest to cleanup the |
| 33 |
qmail mess, but don't want anyone to touch (net)qmail ebuilds either, i |
| 34 |
have put the updated ebuilds for qmail and friends into my overlay. [1] |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Maybe we can get them into the tree some time in the future. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Bene |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
[1] |
| 41 |
http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/hollow/2007/07/15/experimental_qmail_ebuilds |
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives