Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > >>>>> "Dan" == Dan Melomedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Dan> Actually a better solution would be many little patches > Dan> maintained in one project rather than one large patch. > > This is not practically possible. There's always conflicts, and to > anticipate these would be a _HUGE_ task! > > Dan> This > Dan> way people could pick and choose which code to add on top of > Dan> the original qmail. Not everybody needs SMTP-auth and > Dan> dash-ext. > > I'd like to have every single patch possible in the standard Qmail > source. As long as there's ifdef's around them, that's not a problem. > But that's never going to happen.
Haven't you people heard of autoconf? It seems to me that it would be better to have all of these features integrated in one patch with some ability to either compile them in or leave them out via the Makefile, a configure script, or something similar. Even in the case where there is some implementation disagreement e.g. qmail-ldap-control, if there is enough demand for the functionality it seems reasonable to roll it in but have the Makefile default to omitting the code. mg
