Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 11:14:38 -0700 From: Chris Pressey <cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> To: Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> Cc: freebsd-qa@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mail selection options in sysinstall(8). Message-ID: <20030919111438.5025ea0c.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> In-Reply-To: <20030919175349.GB60318@submonkey.net> 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> <20030919105144.730068ac.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> <20030919175349.GB60318@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 18:53:49 +0100 Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:51:44AM -0700, Chris Pressey wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:48:02 -0700 > > Michael Sierchio <kudzu@tenebras.com> 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. > > If I installed a package that put itself in /var simply because the > guy who wrote it says that's where it should be (on my system!), then > I wouldn't be best pleased. Enough said. But that's not an argument for denying it to other users, who quite possibly agree that it should go into /var, or who simply don't care overmuch where it goes. -Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030919111438.5025ea0c.cpressey>