Peter Cavender writes:
> > Laurence Brockman writes:
> > > I'm going to jump into the discussion here and ask why we don't do something
> > > like perl has done with cpan? They don't call them patches, or upgrades, or
> > > anything else. They call them Modules and have a central repository that
> > > users can go and search from. I think this would be ideal for qmail.org
> > > site...
> >
> > He's done *just that*. That's what program delivery in a .qmail file
> > is for. That's what qmail-getpw is for. That's what users/assign is
> > for. That's what qmail-queue is for. Nobody patches the source of
> > perl -- they just go to the published APIs and add things. So why are
> > we patching qmail instead of writing replacements?
>
> What do you mean by "writing replacements"? That people should write
> their own mail servers, rather than try to enhance qmail?
No. I think that people who want qmail-smtpd to have a badrcptto file
as well as a badmailfrom (for example) should make a Makefile, change
qmail-smtpd.c, include the necessary files, and package it up.
There's no reason why they couldn't include the patch file as well.
My point being that most things which are called patches could just as
easily be stand-alone pieces of software.
--
-russ nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://russnelson.com | Government is the
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | fictitious entity by which
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | everyone seeks to live at
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | everyone else's expense.
