From owner-freebsd-qa@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 19 10:49:30 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E976516A4B3; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net (defout.telus.net [199.185.220.240]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632FD43F3F; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:49:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cpressey@catseye.mine.nu) Received: from kallisti.ca ([207.81.23.108]) by priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.netSMTP <20030919174927.PNMS13702.priv-edtnes51.telusplanet.net@kallisti.ca>; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:49:27 -0600 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:51:44 -0700 From: Chris Pressey To: Michael Sierchio Message-Id: <20030919105144.730068ac.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> In-Reply-To: <3F6B1722.7000701@tenebras.com> References: <20030918152942.5c7163df.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <20030918234442.51921f77.sheepkiller@cultdeadsheep.org> <20030918221319.GD1558@FreeBSD.org> <20030919133900.451a3f5d.ltning@anduin.net> <20030919121014.GD386@FreeBSD.org> <3F6B1722.7000701@tenebras.com> Organization: Cat's Eye Technologies X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mail selection options in sysinstall(8). X-BeenThere: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Quality Assurance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:49:31 -0000 On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:48:02 -0700 Michael Sierchio wrote: > Simon L. Nielsen wrote: > > > As mentioned by Tom's original mail that isn't possible due to the > > qmail license. You can go bug djb about it :-) (though I doubt it > > will change anything). > > > > Note, the license is the reason why qmail isn't included, it's not a > > crusade against qmail - I also use qmail myself some places. > > Note: in my view the problem is that the current port maintainer > has decided to produce an install that is not conformant with > Dan's license granting an exception to the requirement for his > approval. It is entirely possible to make a binary package that > either: meets with his approval, or; fulfills the requirements > for the exemption. I quite agree. Quoting http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html : "You are permitted to distribute a precompiled var-qmail package if (1) installing the package produces exactly the same /var/qmail hierarchy as a user would obtain by downloading, compiling, and installing qmail-1.03.tar.gz, fastforward-0.51.tar.gz, and dot-forward-0.71.tar.gz; (2) the package behaves correctly, i.e., the same way as normal qmail+fastforward+dot-forward installations on all other systems; and (3) the package's creator warrants that he has made a good-faith attempt to ensure that the package behaves correctly." Frankly I'd be surprised if a package built straight from the qmail port didn't meet these requirements. -Chris