Re: posible bug in daemontools

On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Chris Pugh <[email protected]> wrote:

> Suggestions:
> ------------------
>
> Youthful enthusiasm or not, you might wish to lose the somewhat glib
> and smart-ar*e style comment, state license information correctly, and
> also maybe follow Dr Nerstein's mildly put recommendations?
>
>    http://cr.yp.to/distributors.html

There is no license.  The djb derived bits are not copyrighted.

You're the first to complain about the attempt at humor.  If I get
further complaints, I will consider removing it.

As to recommendations, I take it you're referring to quote below?

  Please take time to ensure that your distributions of my software
support exactly the same interface as everyone else's
  distributions. In particular, if you move files, please set up
symbolic links from the original locations, so that you don't
frivolously
  break scripts that work everywhere else.

Up to this point, I believe I have failed to honor that request only
in the case of daemontools (since my qmail fork is not yet
operational).  I'm not a fan of slashpackage.  If you are, feel free
to fork my fork and do it Dan's way.  I have no interest in doing so
or arguing about it.

> Why bite the hand that feeds you?

I don't believe I am.

> If you are patching where you think appropriate, you might also wish
> to give the user the option to sequentially apply ( or not ), rather
> than simply embedding them in the source.

The patches don't all play nice with each other.  I only want to
integrate them once.  Not once for every combination somebody might be
interested in.  Note that some of the stuff I've added can be enabled
(or disabled) at run time.  Most (but not all) of the rest is stuff
where I (and others) consider the stock behavior incorrect or broken.