[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
- To: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Why were all DJB's ports removed? No more qmail?
- From: Marc Espie <espie_(_at_)_schutzenberger_(_dot_)_liafa_(_dot_)_jussieu_(_dot_)_fr>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 23:54:11 +0200
- Mail-followup-to: ports_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Reply-to: Marc_(_dot_)_Espie_(_at_)_liafa_(_dot_)_jussieu_(_dot_)_fr
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 08:20:58PM -0000, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> That doesn't answer the question. _Why_ are they not allowed?
This is a quality issue.
In case you haven't noticed, since a few
releases already, everything installs under /usr/local.
Ports also put new files under /etc, and a few very specific files
As for the rest, you'll notice that redhat_base installs under /usr/local,
and /emul is a *link* only.
This allows someone to mount most filesystems read-only, for instance.
The ports system is a practical system. As its quality improves (as it
has steadily), the rules get more stringent. And we get more time to check
Like finally discovering your licence is gibberish.
Surely, even though you're an engineer and not a lawyer, you can grasp
that. Why not give normal BSD redistribution rights ?
Oh wait, I know the answer, everyone but you is a moron and will break
your splendid feat of engineering.