On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 04:51:17PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> Yep. Maybe it is also a good idea to make a stand-alone ebuild for the
> qmail-spp plugins in the tarball i have collected, cleaned up and
> tested so far, so we do not need to handle that in the qmail ebuilds..?
That's a great idea
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:23:52 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:20:43PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > > - I don't like the custom tarball. How do you want to build and
> > > redistribute it without depending on a single person? Its
> > > sources n
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 01:20:43PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> Well, i think the unpack stuff could be handled in the ebuild, but i'd
> still like to keep dospp, so ebuilds like vpopmail can install
> spp-plugins in a standardized way..
dospp is fine. Well, maybe rename it to doqmail-spp to mak
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:08:36 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Benedikt
>
> Sorry for my long response times.
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 09:58:17PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > i thought about this, but i'd really like to see things like
> > qmail-spp and the gento
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:08:36 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - If I remember correctly, elog shouldn't be used for empty lines like
> in qmail_supervise_config_notice. Use echo instead for them.
You remember incorrectly (though I don't think I ever said anything
about it).
Hello Benedikt
Sorry for my long response times.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 09:58:17PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> i thought about this, but i'd really like to see things like qmail-spp
> and the gentoo qmail tarball be handled by the eclass, on the other
> hand i agree that unpacking netqmail or
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:55:16 +0200
Benedikt Boehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:17:46 +0200
> Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:05:23PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > > > qmail_base_install should be split in smaller functions,
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:52:02 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Benedikt
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > It is basically netqmail split into much smaller chunks so they can
> > be reused by other qmail variants as well.
>
> Okay, I
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:17:46 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:05:23PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > > qmail_base_install should be split in smaller functions, maybe
> > > with callbacks (if possible in bash).
>
> > There is now qmail_mini_install
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:05:23PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > qmail_base_install should be split in smaller functions, maybe with
> > callbacks (if possible in bash).
> There is now qmail_mini_install (called by every qmail ebuild) and
> qmail_{full,man,sendmail}_install for the rest of a fu
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:52:02 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Benedikt
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > It is basically netqmail split into much smaller chunks so they can
> > be reused by other qmail variants as well.
>
> Okay, I
Hello Benedikt
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> It is basically netqmail split into much smaller chunks so they can be
> reused by other qmail variants as well.
Okay, I looked through it and found some things which need
reconsideration. I agree that user creation
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 13:19:08 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:07:28AM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > As it seems, you do not have the time and/or interest to cleanup the
> > qmail mess, but don't want anyone to touch (net)qmail ebuilds
> > either,
On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 03:07:28AM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> As it seems, you do not have the time and/or interest to cleanup the
> qmail mess, but don't want anyone to touch (net)qmail ebuilds either, i
> have put the updated ebuilds for qmail and friends into my overlay. [1]
You interpret s
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:02:00 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > qmail-ldap will not be removed for sure, since i maintain it
> > currently.
>
> Okay, my status there was outdated. We were at least discussing it
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:22:47AM -0400, William L. Thomson Jr. wrote:
> > > It seems like you aren't interested in communication with the
> > > maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.
> > Erm? This was completely uncalled for, I'd say?!
To Jakub: It was. Sending such things to a public lis
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> qmail-ldap will not be removed for sure, since i maintain it currently.
Okay, my status there was outdated. We were at least discussing it at
some point in history.
> > And as the netqmail ebuild maintainer, I want the ebuild to be
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:05:51PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> Actually i am qmail maintainer and also been in the qmail herd for
> quite some time...
No, actually you're in the qmail herd and maintainer of the
net-mail/qmail-ldap package. This doesn't make you a netqmail (the
package I care ab
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 05:37:16PM +0300, Petteri Räty wrote:
> We are all required to subscribe to this mailing list... Should be easy
> enough to spot the thread.
You know, sometimes I get tired of all the flames and pointless
discussions and mark all mails as read. If something should be read b
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:22:47 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:53 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Michael Hanselmann napsal(a):
> > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> >
> > > It seems like you aren't interested in comm
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:34:26 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > due to massive code duplication in netqmail, qmail-ldap,
> > qmail-mysql, mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for qmail
> > i have started
On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:53 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Michael Hanselmann napsal(a):
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
>
> > It seems like you aren't interested in communication with the
> > maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.
>
> Erm? This was completely
Michael Hanselmann kirjoitti:
>
> It seems like you aren't interested in communication with the
> maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.
>
We are all required to subscribe to this mailing list... Should be easy
enough to spot the thread.
Regards,
Petteri
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Michael Hanselmann napsal(a):
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
>> due to massive code duplication in netqmail, qmail-ldap, qmail-mysql,
>> mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for qmail i have started
>> to move functionality into a first qmail.eclass draft.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> due to massive code duplication in netqmail, qmail-ldap, qmail-mysql,
> mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for qmail i have started
> to move functionality into a first qmail.eclass draft.
I already proposed moving the pri
Hi all,
due to massive code duplication in netqmail, qmail-ldap, qmail-mysql,
mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for qmail i have started
to move functionality into a first qmail.eclass draft.
It is basically netqmail split into much smaller chunks so they can be
reused by other qmail v
26 matches
Mail list logo
