debian/patches/20-drac_auth.dpatch

[Benjamin Seidenberg]

Edward J. Shornock wrote:

>Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>  
>
>>On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Edward Shornock wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>While making my own custom version of the package (to include a few
>>>patches from http://email.uoa.gr/projects/cyrus , I noticed this:
>>>
>>>
>>> imapd.quant: $(IMAPDOBJS) mutex_fake.o libimap.a $(DEPLIBS) $(SERVICE)
>>>        $(QUANTIFY) $(QUANTOPT) $(CC) $(LDFLAGS) -o imapd.quant \
>>>         $(SERVICE) $(IMAPDOBJS) mutex_fake.o libimap.a \
>>>-       $(DEPLIBS) $(LIBS) $(LIB_WRAP)
>>>+       $(DEPLIBS) $(LIBS) $(LIB_WRAP) $(DRAC_LIBS) $(DRAC_LIBS)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Is $(DRAC_LIBS) supposed to be duplicated on that line?
>>>      
>>>
>>No, it is a bug.
>>
>>Actually, wasn't removing DRAC completely the consensus we reached a while
>>back?
>>    
>>
>
>Yeah, I found this in my archives:
>
>
>On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 02:32:06PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>  
>
>>On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Sven Mueller wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Actually, I have to agree.
>>>
>>>Does anyone know of any site which actually still uses DRAC?
>>>      
>>>
>>No.  I am for removing DRAC support from 2.2 and 2.3.  2.1 must keep it, of
>>course, since it is supposed to be in deep maintenance mode.
>>    
>>
>
>I would think that *most* people would use SMTP AUTH...
>  
>
DRAC support is added on in dpatch, right? We can always ship the 
patches in the source, but not enable them by default.

Benjamin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-cyrus-imapd-debian-devel/attachments/20060214/eb6dbbd7/signature.pgp