Amitai Schlair <schmonz%schmonz.com@localhost> writes: > The history there is, I added a bunch of rc.d scripts and other > pkgsrcery to qmail, told the qmail list about it, got pushback from > some list old-timers who generally didn't like any sort of packages > and at least wanted users to be able to tell the difference between > what's part of "qmail" and what's random other crud, and went along > with it. Then I figured I might as well do the same thing for djbdns. > And here you are, figuring you might as well do the same thing for > publicfile. ;-) As I see it, there are djb-purists who object to packages, and the norm in pkgsrc that a package should have all the stuff that belongs. Having a package that is missing rc.d scripts (which are really obviously separate, because they come from files/, and could well have a comment saying they aren't from the original distribution -- is there actual confusion, or just purism?) seems like it satisfies neither goal well. > I tend to agree, particularly because DJB has placed much of his > software in the public domain, but not (yet?) publicfile. Even if > publicfile were public domain, I'm not sure I'd want to merge > djbdns-run and qmail-run back into their parent packages, and less > sure I'd want to merge more than zero and less than all three. It's > been a while since I thought about this stuff, though. I'm open to > being persuaded. Reading djb's rants, I don't see any issue with packaging publicfile with rc.d scripts (unless we are explicitly asked not to, and I don't have any reason to think that has happened). I don't see a real distinction between a second package with the scripts and them being in the same package. We can't distribute the package (or the distfile), either adding rc.d scripts or not. All that said, I don't think this is a big deal; all the djbware has been odd in pkgsrc for a long time.
Attachment:
pgp_iKQreRbAz.pgp
Description: PGP signature