[TriLUG] red hat sendmail rpms with tls support?

[Jeremy Katz]

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 11:15, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Jeremy Portzer wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 09:54, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >>wrt apache, rh completely ignored/modified/whacked the apachectl
> >>script, giving it a different name, arguments, and location.
> >>other things, too, but that's the most serious in terms of support.
> >>fortunately, mark cox tells me they stopped doing this for 8.0
> >>(maybe 7.3), but since i run neither 8.0 nor the apache rpm i
> >>haven't verified.
> > 
> > Isn't this so that the service can be run by the standard
> > /etc/rc.d/init.d/ paradigm (ie, the "service" command)?  I don't see
> > what's wrong with that
> 
> aside from the fact that apachectl as shipped with apache *already does*?
> and that if they had any changes, they could just leave apachectl in the
> apache hierarchy and wrapper it with an rc script?  but no, they had to
> scrap apachectl and rewrite it.  n-i-h.

Ummm, except perhaps for the fact that there was an rc script before
apachectl existed.  ISTR that apachectl was new in apache 1.3 and apache
has been shipped in Red Hat Linux since before that.  Should it have
been rewritten when apache 1.3 came out with apachectl?  Maybe, but
there were like 2 people doing the entire distribution then and it
probably fell into the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" category ;-)

> >>latest news: sendmail 8.12 rpm needs db-4.  db-4 needs jdkgcj.
> >>jdkgcj needs gcjlib.  gcjlib needs gcc-java.  now why the flying
> >>moose ears does a db package need java libraries???
> > 
> > 
> > It's probably because there are APIs for calling db4 from Java.  As more
> > and more packages get sophisticated and compatible with each other, they
> > need more and more libraries.  I think it's a fact of life, and disk
> > space is cheap!  But I understand your frustration.
> 
> aside from the fact that i have jikes, but was forced to install the
> gcc compiler.

I'm sure the sleepycat people would take patches.  It's obvious that
they'll take patches for anything based on the continuous changes to
berkeley db that break compatibility.  But that's a rant for another day
:)

Jeremy