Re: errno-patch (Re: Email servers)

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Paul Jarc wrote:

> Charlie Brady <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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;
...
> (1) is also in question - "download, compile, and install" doesn't
> obviously include "edit".

It's not an edit, it's a build time configuration, provided by Dan.

And it seems that you are not parsing 1) the same way that I am. I am 
interpreting "the same .. hierarchy" to mean "the same set of files and 
directories".

>  Now, the same effect as your edit could be
> produced without editing by using a "cc" wrapper script, but such a
> script could make arbitrarily large changes,

Could, but in this case doesn't.

> which in general could potentially make qmail misbehave;

Yes, but that is covered by 2) and 3).

> and a user would probably not use a
> qmail-patching wrapper script normally (i.e., for anything but qmail).

Or for any package when the standard compiler does not "work", but another 
available compiler does, e.g. nearly all of DJB's packages on a system 
with glibc 2.3.x.
 
> Just as a guess, I doubt Dan would sue anyone for distributing a
> binary qmail that was changed only to fix the errno problem.  But by a
> strict, paranoid reading of dist.html, I'd say it's prohibited: if
> qmail fails to compile, that's wrong behavior, and: "If there's
> something about a system (compiler, libraries, kernel, hardware,
> whatever) that changes qmail's behavior, then that platform is not
> supported, and you are not permitted to distribute binaries."

Interesting point. So we change the compiler, and bring the system into 
compliance.

> Of course, it could be argued that failure to compile is not qmail's own
> behavior, but some other behavior.

That would be a common sense reading, IMO.

> We are forced to guess about DJB's intent ....

:-)

--
Charlie