> It refers to modified versions of the source code.
Unfortunately, the way OpenBSD's (and many other BSD's) ports work is
to patch a wayward program into something approaching the chosen
heirarchy standard for the OS in question.
> I don't mind a BSD-style port that simply follows the installation
> instructions.
However, as it is policy that all ports from /usr/ports attempt to
install program binaries somewhere under /usr/local, and this would
require patches to qmail (albeit patches applied at build time, and
certainly not distributed WITH qmail) it would very much be against
the spirit of your documentation to do so. Although the
BSD/Architecture "ports" clarification was nice.
> I have also explicitly granted permission for the
> distribution of precompiled packages that behave correctly. There's
> nothing stopping OpenBSD from distributing a qmail package.
Except that, to be a well-behaved port your software would have to be
patched to NOT work in the manner you have specified, thereby breaking
your license, pissing you off, and causing all manner of small animals
to fall upon the world like a plague.
> Theo de Raadt writes:
> > That code has never been free.
>
> When are you going to stop shipping Netscape 4? Hypocrite.
Netscape 4 is free for redistribution. And because it adopts something
of a sane install location, it doesn't even have to have that patched.
I think maybe "That code has never been free" was meant more to serve
as a general warning to those who believe that you write what could be
called "free software".
> > What he is saying is that licences are granted on a discretionary and
> > specific case-by-case basis.
>
> In fact, I said exactly the opposite. My approval of a patch depends
> only on the contents of the patch itself.
Which is discretionary (that is, you use your discretion as to whether
a patch is appropriate and fits in with how you want your software
installed) and on a case-by-case basis (as you judge each patch on its
own merits). So tell me again how a statement can be the opposite of
its equivalent.
> > And recent versions are completely non-Unixy in the way they mess with
> > the system.
>
> Funny. People normally say I'm being _too_ UNIXy.
That boggles my imagination. But then, there's no telling what
actually makes it through your filters to bring THAT statement above
50%.
> Frankly, I don't care
> whether or not anyone thinks it's UNIXy; what I care about is how well
> the package actually works.
"How well the package actually works" is exactly what the OpenBSD
port coders care about, as well. What I think maybe you meant was "How
well the package actually works, and complies with my philosophies
regarding unix packages."
You, and I, and everyone here knows that the reason your software was
pulled from the ports tree was that noone involved cared to back down.
You don't care to have your software installed under /usr/local/, and
the OpenBSD ports team doesn't care to keep track of /services.
So aside from winning points with the unaligned, these posts are
rather meaningless.
jeff
>
> ---Dan
>
--
Jeff Bachtel (root@ISC,TAMU) http://www.cepheid.org/~jeff
[finger jeff@cepheid.org for PGP key]
|