gt; > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I haven't personally experienced the process of submitting RPMs for
> > > inclusion to the RPMForge, but I imagine it's quite reasonable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> &g
e, but I imagine it's quite reasonable.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Joseph Lundgren
> >
> > Systems Engineer
> >
> > Peak Internet, LLC
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTEC
Wow... Excellent news!
I agree, qmt is much more than just qmail. The toaster is the toaster,
qmail is qmail.
Should definitely be kept separate.
DJB, if you read this list, a big thanks!
Erik A. Espinoza wrote:
Glad you approve of the plan.
Erik
On Nov 30, 2007 8:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROT
Glad you approve of the plan.
Erik
On Nov 30, 2007 8:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Erik,
>
> This is great. And your plan is solid.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nick
>
> > The QmailToaster will not be merged into some other repo. I will be
> > creating a repo for the QmailToaster only.
> >
> > This
Hi Erik,
This is great. And your plan is solid.
Regards,
Nick
> The QmailToaster will not be merged into some other repo. I will be
> creating a repo for the QmailToaster only.
>
> This is because automatic updates for things in rpmforge are okay, but
> require a little special care on the Qmai
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> --
>
> Joseph Lundgren
>
> Systems Engineer
>
> Peak Internet, LLC
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
> From: Warren Melnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:38 AM
> To: qmailtoaster-l
e it's quite reasonable.
Sincerely,
--
Joseph Lundgren
Systems Engineer
Peak Internet, LLC
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Warren Melnick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:38 AM
To: qmailtoaster-list@qmailtoaster.com
Subject: Re: [qmailtoaster] qmail
Getting into CentOS would mean either having it in the extras repo (fine
with me) or convincing RedHat to include it in RHEL, which would first mean
getting it into Fedora and making sure it is stable.
W
On Nov 30, 2007 11:42 AM, A M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> 2007/11/30, Johannes Weberhof
2007/11/30, Johannes Weberhofer, Weberhofer GmbH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
>
> http://www.ornl.gov/lists/mailing-lists/qmail/2007/11/msg00069.html
>
>
>
> I think, that's good news for the further development of qmail! Shouldn't
> it now be possible to publish binary
I got that part - I meant as far as maintaining the qmail project itself.
In fact, it not only means no building, but it means that the srmps, if you
want them to, can have all of the patches already in place and the binary
RPMS as well.
W
On Nov 30, 2007 11:04 AM, slamp slamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
this means no more building on your own. you no longer need build
tools installed on your mail server (those of us with no dev server).
you only need to yum intall the qmail packages and yum update when new
packages are in!
On Nov 30, 2007 8:57 AM, Warren Melnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What
What does that mean for this project and similar ones? Not that all of the
common patches can be rolled into qmail itself and configured with switches
(in files, etc).
Any thoughts?
W
On Nov 30, 2007 4:53 AM, Harry Zink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FINALLY!
>
> Great news, indeed. Binary distr
FINALLY!
Great news, indeed. Binary distributions are now finally a reality.
If anything, this can only breathe renewed life and vigor into qmail.
Harry
On Nov 30, 2007, at 12:38 AM, Johannes Weberhofer, Weberhofer GmbH
wrote:
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
http://www.ornl.gov/lists/ma
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
http://www.ornl.gov/lists/mailing-lists/qmail/2007/11/msg00069.html
I think, that's good news for the further development of qmail! Shouldn't it
now be possible to publish binary distributions of the toaster packages!?
Johannes
--
|---
14 matches
Mail list logo
