Re: Bug#457318: qmail and related packages in NEW
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 11:29:13AM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Gerrit Pape <email@example.com> writes:
> > Hi, I'm quite surprised how the inclusion of qmail and related packages
> > into sid is handled, or rather not handled, by the ftpmasters.
> I downloaded the netqmail source from http://dbn.smarden.org/sid/ and
> looked briefly at it, to see if most of the well-known (some of the for
> 10+ years!) bugs have been fixed. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem so.
> The Debian packaging included surprisingly few patches, and the fixes
> I tested still applies to the Debian package. e.g:
> bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/mydebs/tmp/netqmail-1.06$ patch -p0 --dry-run < ../patch-qmail-1.03-rfc2821.diff
> patching file qmail-remote.c
> bjorn@canardo:/usr/local/mydebs/tmp/netqmail-1.06$ patch -p0 --dry-run < ../patch-qmail-1.03-rfc1652.diff
> patching file ./qmail-smtpd.c
> Hunk #1 succeeded at 229 with fuzz 1.
> To avoid having packages starting their Debian life with a long list of
> serious and grave bugs, may I suggest that you take a look at
> http://www.dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de/~ma/qmail-bugs.html 
> and either include the patches or use the suggested workarounds?
Sure, the two patches you mention might be considered for Debian.
However, I wonder how two issues can be called a 'long list', and how
these can be judged as severity grave or serious.
Right now, upstream doesn't completely agree with Andree's list of bugs.
Do you know how many people add accept_8bitmime to the default exim
configuration, and for what reason? Do you know why any highest
priority MX with the closest distance to the mail store should issue
temporary errors on incoming connections permanently, and whether this
is okay with the standards?
I've yet to be pointed to a grave or serious bug in the packages pending
in NEW, otherwise I see no reason why they shouldn't be processed and
pass NEW. I completely agree with this well written post