Re: Potentially Predatory Pre-Announcement of Possible Vaporware (zinq-djbdns-0.01)

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 5:50 AM, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> Other than the errno nonsense, which we all know is a one line patch,
> I've never heard any complaints about the portability of djbdns.

    The switch to Autoconf/Automake was not motivated by a desire for
increased portability.

> Right.  There's a few reasonable patches worth packaging in, e.g., the
> small bug fixes from J. deBPollard.  Beyond that, the recently
> discussed patchlet to handle large responses seems benign and useful,
> and at some point we'll need to think about EDNS0 and maybe even
> DNSSEC.

    I have no interest in 'packaging' patches.  If something is worth
fixing, it's worth checking into source control.  So far, I have not
applied any patches.  I've hand edited the code myself.