On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 10:48:08AM -0300, Bruno Negrão wrote:
> Hi guys,
> 
> When I started making the qmail-ldap version of the qmail-control(5) 
> manpage I thought about giving up of writing these manpages.
> 
> But  when I finished it I realized that it worth while because it brought 
> new information about qmail-ldap.
> 
> qmail-control(5) provides a means to greatly compare stock Qmail with 
> Qmail-ldap, in a manner not done before, showing clearly the simplicity of 
> Qmail versus the complexity of Qmail-ldap.
> 
> Also, it shows that the "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE" does not provide 
> accurate information about all the control files. Just to illustrate this:
> a) "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE" says that auth_pop and auth_imap have the 
> same control files as qmail-lspawn: not true because qmail-lspawn does not 
> read "ldaprebind" while auth_imap and auth_pop do.

Wrong qmail-lspawn reads ldaprebind. It does not use it but it reads the
file.

> b) "THE BIG Qmail-LDAP PICTURE" does not say which program reads the 
> "cert.pem" control file. But qmail-control(5) will show that for you.
> 

Cert.pem is not directly read by any qmail-ldap tool. qmail-smtpd reads
now smtpcert and decides from there which cert should be used.
Btw. there is also a ENV to override smtpcert.

> After all, qmail-control(5) introduces a solution about how to properly 
> create manpages for the ~control/files, considering that a lot of these 
> control files are read by up to 4 different programs.
> 
> I urge everybody to read  
> http://www.qmail-ldap.org/wiki/Man/Man5/qmail-control.
> 
> And I need your feedback. I won't continue if I discover I'm working on the 
> wrong way.
> 

"Furthermore, Qmail-ldap broke down stock Qmail's rule that 1 control file
is read by only 1 qmail-program."
Wrong. ~control/me is read by more than one qmail-program.
There are a few more files that behave similar.

The documentation location table is plain worng and super ugly. It
remebers me too much of unpleasant Solaris nightmares. Just make a page
per config file. This is a web-page and even for manpages I would do it
like this. There is no need to save inodes.

-- 
:wq Claudio

Reply via email to