| 1 |
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote: |
| 2 |
> qmail-ldap will not be removed for sure, since i maintain it currently. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Okay, my status there was outdated. We were at least discussing it at |
| 5 |
some point in history. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> > And as the netqmail ebuild maintainer, I want the ebuild to be as |
| 8 |
> > simple as possible, that is, no external dependencies where possible. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> so, you suggest it is a better way to duplicate tons of code in 4 |
| 11 |
> ebuilds? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'll think about it. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> appearantly, you are subscribed to gentoo-dev. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
… which doesn't necessarily mean I read it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> On a sidenote, qmail has a huge amount of open bugs, and has generally |
| 20 |
> gotten no love in the past time, so i wonder if it actually was/is |
| 21 |
> maintained. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
qmail != netqmail. To my knowledge, we have only one outstanding bug |
| 24 |
there, the one with man pages colliding, nothing critical. Since I also |
| 25 |
have other things in life with higher priorities than Gentoo, it has to |
| 26 |
wait. However, I should get to it during the week or at latest two |
| 27 |
weeks. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Greets, |
| 30 |
Michael |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
http://hansmi.ch/ |
Archives