Re: errno-patch (Re: Email servers)

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Paul Jarc wrote:

> Charlie Brady <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> Is there a problem with:
> >>> echo "gcc --include /usr/include/errno.h" > conf-cc
> >
> > Anyone else? I believe this satisfies both the spirit and the letter of:
> >
> > http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
> 
> It depends what you mean, exactly.  If you edit conf-cc, create a new
> tarball with that modification, and distribute it, then I'd say you're
> obviously violating the letter.  OTOH, if you distribute an unmodified
> tarball along with a script that makes the above change and then
> builds and installs qmail, I guess you'd be ok.  But the same is true
> for the plain old errno patch.

No, I mean build and distribute a "precompiled var-qmail package", as 
permitted, using my choice of compiler.

...
Exception: You are permitted to distribute a precompiled var-qmail package 
if
 (1) installing the package produces exactly the same /var/qmail 
  hierarchy as a user would obtain by downloading, compiling, and 
  installing qmail-1.03.tar.gz, fastforward-0.51.tar.gz, and
  dot-forward-0.71.tar.gz; 
(2) the package behaves correctly, i.e., the same way as normal
  qmail+fastforward+dot-forward installations on all other systems; and 
(3) the package's creator warrants that he has made a good-faith attempt to 
  ensure that the package behaves correctly. 
...

There are 3 conditions here, the only one which might be in question being
2). Does DJB expect that binary distributions must generate error messages
on glibc 2.3.x systems? Or does he expect a binary distribution for such
systems to "behave correctly, i.e., the same way as normal
qmail+fastforward+dot-forward installations on all other system".

--
Charlie