Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-02 Thread Peter C. Norton
On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 12:30:31AM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Being rude is the barrier to effective distribution of qmail binaries? That and the fact that creating a forked rpm and expecting that use of it will be widespread is pissing into the wind. The ratio of installed qmail syste

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-02 Thread Russ Allbery
johnjohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 12:13:10AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: >> But doing so is considered quite rude in the free software community, >> for good reason. > That you don't care to go into right now... That other people have said far better than I have. Se

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-02 Thread johnjohn
On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 12:13:10AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > johnjohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > You're confusing RedHat with djb. RedHat can't do anything to stop > > anyone from forking rpm. > > But doing so is considered quite rude in the free software community, for > good reason.

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-02 Thread Russ Allbery
johnjohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You're confusing RedHat with djb. RedHat can't do anything to stop > anyone from forking rpm. But doing so is considered quite rude in the free software community, for good reason. I certainly don't consider forking to be the big advantage of open source.

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-02 Thread Adam D. McKenna
Tripwire. Haven't we been through this already? --Adam On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 08:44:38PM -0500, Peter C. Norton wrote: > On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 01:28:08AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > No that's a great idea. Have rpm spawn an external -_possibly_tampered_with_- > > binary to verify qmail.

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-01 Thread Peter van Dijk
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 05:10:00PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 01:28:08AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > > > No that's a great idea. Have rpm spawn an external -_possibly_tampered_with_- > > binary to verify qmail. > > That's just silly. Do an md5 checksum of th

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-01 Thread Peter C. Norton
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 05:10:00PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Then having a control file with the uids in it sounds safer to me. > > That's just flat out not an option. Until it is, why waste time > considering it? Originally because perhaps djb would consider a useful, mostly trivial

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-01 Thread Peter C. Norton
On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 01:28:08AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote: > No that's a great idea. Have rpm spawn an external -_possibly_tampered_with_- > binary to verify qmail. Then having a control file with the uids in it sounds > safer to me. While I agree with you completely, I'm really looking forw

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-01 Thread johnjohn
On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 01:28:08AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote: > > No that's a great idea. Have rpm spawn an external -_possibly_tampered_with_- > binary to verify qmail. That's just silly. Do an md5 checksum of the verification binary as a preamble to verifying the qmail binaries. > Then ha

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-01 Thread Peter van Dijk
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 04:07:06PM -0500, Peter C. Norton wrote: > On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Sam wrote: > > > No, that's your answer right there. This proposed feature is not going to > > benefit anything else except Qmail. You do not stick features into system > > management to

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-01 Thread johnjohn
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Sam wrote: > > That's not an answer, that's an evasion. > > No, that's your answer right there. This proposed feature is not going to > benefit anything else except Qmail. You do not stick features into system > management tools unless there's a clear b

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-01 Thread Peter C. Norton
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 03:41:04PM -0500, Sam wrote: > No, that's your answer right there. This proposed feature is not going to > benefit anything else except Qmail. You do not stick features into system > management tools unless there's a clear benefit that will profit at least > a good fract

Re: qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-01 Thread johnjohn
On Fri, Jan 01, 1999 at 02:52:27PM -0500, Sam wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jan 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Just thinking about this. > > > > RPM is distributed under the GPL. That means there's nothing stopping > > anyone from modifying the source to do whatever checking needs to be > > done in o

qmail <-> rpm integration question

1999-01-01 Thread johnjohn
Just thinking about this. RPM is distributed under the GPL. That means there's nothing stopping anyone from modifying the source to do whatever checking needs to be done in order for someone to rpm --verify a /var/qmail package? Why isn't that the answer to distributing qmail binaries? If the