Subject: Re: CVS commit: src/distrib/sets/lists
To: Brett Lymn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Hisashi T Fujinaka <email@example.com>
Date: 06/02/2006 07:27:56
On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Brett Lymn wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 01:16:29PM -0400, Douglas Wade Needham wrote:
>>> What I will say is that at this point, I
>>> certainly cannot see any reason a discussion about the possible
>>> removal of sendmail could not have been carried out on a list such as
>>> this, just as other feature changes are often discussed.
>> The issue was discussed. Unfortunately sendmail vs others is one of
>> those polarising issues. There really is no "right" solution, there
>> will always be a group of people that will be disenfranchised whatever
>> way this went. I suspect most people will be happy just to have a MTA
>> that forwards their mail, for the people that require a specific
>> feature set then there is always pkgsrc - if that doesn't cut it I am
>> sure that sendmail builds from source without any hassle.
>> FWIW my preference would have been to leave sendmail in the tree but
>> the it was decided it should go. I shall get over it - pkgsrc or hand
>> built will do me.
> Or even an announcement before I started seeing cvs commit messages
> would be nice.
> And I forget what it was, but when I complained about something
> recently, one of you core guys said, "This was discussed and decided in
> core. Tough noogies." I'm not sure what that means. Do you want me to
> fork (not likely) or go to another OS (not likely, but easier for me
> than the other option.)
Oh, and let me emphasize my actual point, core is opaque. Only core
knows what happens in core. I guess it's not as bad as fight club, but
sheesh. Can't you at least post some minutes of your meetings?
Hisashi T Fujinaka - firstname.lastname@example.org
BSEE(6/86) + BSChem(3/95) + BAEnglish(8/95) + MSCS(8/03) + $2.50 = latte