[Gllug] re: qmail

[Richard Jones]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:34:31AM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> I prefer to use applications which are actively maintained in a rational
> fasion, where enhancements are merged into the core code and are then
> properly reviewed and audited.  I can still opt not to include those
> enhancements and so avoid bloat.
> 
> In contrast, enhancements to qmail are forced, by DJB's attitude, always
> to remain as patches.  Not only are they not reviewed by the maintainer
> of the core code, they are less likely to get the same comprehensive
> field-testing as patches for more sanely developed applications, since
> real-world qmail set-ups are more widely divergent, with the result that
> the impact of any one patch on any other patch (or combination of
> patches) is less likely to be monitored.

Sounds similar to the situation which existed with Minix, and one of
the reasons I quickly dumped that as soon as Linux became available.

I ended up applying so many patches against the core Minix code that
it became a nightmare to integrate them all.  There would be conflicts
all over the place which had to be resolved by hand.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://www.j-london.com/
Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment
Learning Objective CAML for C, C++, Perl and Java programmers:
http://www.merjis.com/richj/computers/ocaml/tutorial/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20040312/ac70c541/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug