Re: [qmailtoaster-devel] vpopmail Mandrvia patch

On Wednesday 07 March 2012 11:56 PM, Eric Shubert wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 01:15 AM, Nigel Reed wrote:
>> As promised, this patch allows the latest vpopmail to compile under
>> Mandriva (I forget to mention I got this and the SpamAssassin rpms from
>> http://arachnis.com/qmt/1.4.0/)
>>
>> So it'll compile --with mdv2012
>>
>> I've also added --with manydomains because I'm tired of screwing with
>> the spec file and if it changes I'm stuffed. This doesn't report in the
>> %description section because, honestly, I have no idea how to stop it
>> putting anything but a literal in there. If someone can enlighten me,
>> I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> I'll see if I can go through some of the other new bits and Mandrivalize
>> them :D
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nigel
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nigel,
>
> I can't say I share your enthusiasm regarding Mandriva. The latest 
> post on the Manriva Blog 
> (http://blog.mandriva.com/en/2012/01/30/not-this-time/) says "the 
> financial situation – far better than expected – allow {sic} us to 
> search for a new way to solve the current issue until mid-February." 
> It's been nearly a month since mid-February. The longer the silence, 
> the less optomistic one can expect to be.
>
> That being said, I don't really have a problem with keeping and 
> including your Mandriva-specific code in the spec files for the time 
> being, so long as as they don't put a substantial burden on 
> development efforts. This way you can continue to use the current QMT 
> releases without needing to fork. This is as a courtesy to you though, 
> and in no way should imply any support on the Mandriva platform at 
> this time or in the future. You'll of course be responsible for doing 
> your own builds and troubleshooting. In return, we expect that you'll 
> be available to help any other poor souls who may insist on running 
> QMT on Mandriva, while we will continue to discourage such practice.
>
> Anyone have a problem with this?
>
>
> Bharath,
>
> Can you easily include Nigel's patches in the 1.4.0 release of these 
> packages? Please keep the version at 1.4.0 (not 1.4.1), as I don't 
> think it merits a release number bump.
>
Hi Eric,

I'll take a look at Nigel's patches as soon as I can. And then get back 
whether they are easily includable (Yup, add that word to your 
dictionary!!) :)

Bharath