Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(November 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Preliminary patch list (long)
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs @ hpc . uh . edu>
Date: 16 Nov 1996 22:52:31 -0600
To: majordomo-workers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: Chael Hall's message of Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:00:12 -0500 (EST)
References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.961116215017.13836K-100000@chaos.taylored.com>

>>>>> "CH" == Chael Hall <nowhere@chaos.taylored.com> writes:

CH> I got the distinct impression here that only changes by the authors
CH> were being put into Majordomo and others were being distributed only as
CH> patches.

No, it's just that development has been slowed down somewhat for a variety
of reasons.  I'm trying to pick the pace back up.

CH> Maybe I'm just used to the qmail development environment where Dan (who
CH> is a great guy for having written the stuff in the first place) shoots
CH> down almost every idea for improvements.

It isn't like that, nor should it be.  (That's the reason, BTW, that I gave
up on qmail.)  It's the rare person who can maintain this much code alone,
and it would be foolish to ignore the vast resource that is all of the
perl-literate users who will hack for free.

CH> Your patches are probably more elegant anyway, but if you want to use
CH> some of them let me know (via private e-mail) which ones.

Well, at the moment I don't see any bugfix functionality that's not covered
by patches already submitted.  Other patches might warrant consideration
when we get out of bugfix mode, and I'll look over them then.

CH> The patches for Majordomo that deal with qmail really are a separate
CH> issue altogether...  Majordomo works fine by itself, but when you
CH> introduce qmail, some changes need to be made in order to maximize the
CH> benefits and avoid certain situations unique to qmail.

When we get around to considering adding new functionality, we should go
over exactly what is required for use with qmail.  Some of the changes
(dealing with disallowing certain perfectly legal RFC822 addresses,
probably for security reasons) looked quite severe.  If they are absolutely
required then I can understand.  In any case, they would need to be wrapped
in a majordomo.cf variable.  Honestly, if the changes are properly wrapped
up and you can get the rest of the required functionality by changing
$mailer and $bounce_mailer then they can do just about whatever is
necessary.  The only real requirement is that nothing change unless the
installer asks for it.

 - J<

PS: I will be out of town for the majority of Sunday.


References:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Preliminary patch list (long)
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Next: Re: Before I start hacking majordomo...
From: Brian Behlendorf <brian@hyperreal.com>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Preliminary patch list (long)
From: Chael Hall <nowhere@chaos.taylored.com>
Next: Re: Preliminary patch list (long)
From: Ajay Kochhar <kochhar@ari.ari.net>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com