Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/05/29/04:34:11
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>To cgf:
>>Yes, I must forget about sharing Win32 binaries.
>>
>>
>That's a really regrettable outcome of the qmail license. Oh well.
>
>cgf
>
As far as i remember some linux distro do have qmail in binary form...
they asked DJB and (as far as I remember) he added to the license the
"exception".
Woulnd't this be acceptable on "our platform" too?
> Exception: You are permitted to distribute a precompiled var-qmail
> package <http://cr.yp.to/qmail/var-qmail.html> 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. It
> is not acceptable <http://cr.yp.to/compatibility.html> to have qmail
> working differently on different machines; any variation is a bug. If
> there's something about a system (compiler, libraries, kernel,
> hardware, whatever) that changes qmail's behavior, then that platform
> is /not/ supported, and you are /not/ permitted to distribute binaries.
This would require of course to have a binary with no vpopmail support... =(
P.S.: maybe it's just that I'm using FreeBSD more and more, but its
"ports system" seems to me better each time I think of it (it is a
collection of some 8000 Makefiles that contains instruction to download
source form original website, apply patch if necessary, compile and
install as a system package).
It is true, of course, that most of the people out there wouln't like to
compile things, but when it's an automatic non-interactive script, it
can be a little better maybe.
This reminds me that maybe it could be cool to have an "install" option
in "type 2 packages" that installs them directly, without bothering to
have a "fake" local setup.ini, starting setup, let it install the
package... this would need some command line "installed package db"
management of some kind. Or it is already out there, only I didn't
notice it?
--
Lapo 'Raist' Luchini
lapo AT lapo DOT it (PGP & X.509 keys available)
http://www.lapo.it (ICQ UIN: 529796)
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -