-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:47:24PM -0800, Asheesh Laroia wrote: > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: >> Supporting new drivers means patching the uw-imap source included >> with alpine. I believe it makes good sense to instead patch alpine >> the use the shared (Debian-patched not-approved-by-Mark Crispin) >> libc-client package and if Alpine invents additional patches for the >> uw-imap source in addition to the current Maildir patch then consider >> applying them to that shared library instead, for the benefit of php >> and others using it, in addition to Alpine. >> >> If we find that some patches (possibly including the current Maildir >> patch) may not be stable enough to force all Debian users of uw-imap >> and other C-lient-based software, then we could maybe extend the >> build routines of uw-imap to package several flavors of th c-client >> library with different patches applied. > > This seems like more trouble than it's worth. I hardly see the > benefit at all, actually. > > But tell me if I'm missing something.
User A wants a super solid webmail setup. So she picks Dovecot and Postfix for the backends, and postman as frontend (to avoid php). User B wants fancy features, so picks courier and horde. User B must use Maildir storage, but user A might want to go with mbox, as it is safer (Maildir support in c-client _is_ a hack unsupported by Mark Crispin!). So if only they offered same ABI, we could offer multiple variants of libc-client to our users, one supported upstream, and one with additional fancy add-ons like Maildir support. Does it make more sense now? - Jonas - -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH0SFUn7DbMsAkQLgRAofgAJ9QbaybyCnmkFcRMbP/dz32sWv3wQCdG4Gh OKkXiNa1mD1tlb/Bf9RMs2A= =NEw2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
