Re: attn: bogofilter users
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 09:32:07AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> On Monday 30 September 2002 09:23, Clint Adams wrote:
> > > Don't you think it would be more appropriate to warn about this in
> > > the maintainer scripts? I mean - it is unstable, but still I would
> > > not expect an upgraded package to break any part of my mail system.
> > > Even less that the maintainer knows about the proble...
> >
> > I don't think an interactive preinst is appropriate, people get upset
> > about debconf notes, and warning anywhere after the binary is unpacked
> > is too late. Do you have a better way?
>
> bogofilter2 (or whatever) like most of the other packages do when they
> completely break things?
>
> We are all thinking about this today. What happens in 6 months, a year,
> when a user from stable upgrades and loses their filtering software?
But bogofilter isn't in stable, it's only in unstable and this makes a
difference. So I would say it's better not to clutter up the namespace by
changing the package name. Of course, I would also tend to vote for the
interactive preinst, since this is quite a major change. It seems like if
an interactive preinst is ever appropriate, this would be it.
Also, I would guess that the worst case scenario should be that all of a
user's mail starts getting sent to the spambox, which is hardly the end of
the world. Any user who has set up procmail to delete mail based on
bogofilter has a seriously unstable system as it is.
--
David Roundy
http://civet.berkeley.edu/droundy/
Reply to: