Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3ED5FBCD.1020903@hack.kampbjorn.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 14:23:41 +0200
From: Hack Kampbjorn <cygwin AT hack DOT kampbjorn DOT com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
X-Accept-Language: en,da,es,ca
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: qmail port successfull
References: <1854 DOT 212 DOT 0 DOT 200 DOT 22 DOT 1054180564 DOT mtc AT mail DOT moldtelecom DOT md> <20030529040027 DOT GA14729 AT redhat DOT com> <3ED5C5F4 DOT 7080208 AT lapo DOT it>
In-Reply-To: <3ED5C5F4.7080208@lapo.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Lapo Luchini wrote:
> 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.

What license? AFAICT there is no license, at most some webpages with DJB's 
comments on software licenses (but no license).
>>
>> 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 

This doesn't look like a license to my. Anyway I couldn't find any reference to 
it inside the qmail tarball.
> 
> 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?
> 
No, this is one of FreeBSD's ports system shortcomings (the difference between 
make install and pkg_add) take a look at OpenBSD for a more featured 
implementation of the ports system, but still using makefiles. Other interesting 
  implementations are Gentoo's Portage (using Python) and OpenDarwin's 
DarwinPorts (using TCL).

-- 
Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards

Hack Kampbjørn


--
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/