On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 11:52:04AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > I really think spamassassin 3 should make it into Sarge, if at all > possible, and not be held up by depending packages which aren't up > to speed. I'm currently inclined to leave 2.64 in sarge (as has been my intention ever since uploading 3.0.0). While it would be nice to get spamassassin 3.0.0 in to sarge, it's too late and we'd probably need to wait until 3.0.1 anyways (3.0.0 seems to have a couple of issues that are fixed in .1). After reading the discussion, the only other option I'd consider at this moment would be putting a spamassassin3 package in sarge. Unfortunately, I don't really feel this would be particularly useful, for the same reasons spamassassin 2.64 won't be useful. SpamAssassin really needs to be kept more up to date than that. While SpamAssassin 3 will have more staying power than 2.64, it'll still go out of date well before sarge+1's release. I don't feel that people will bother upgrading from spamassassin to spamassassin3 (3.0.0) when 3.2.x is around. (I may be overestimating the speed at which spamassassin releases, but then again, woody has 2.20, which is so incredibly obsolete right now, I wonder if it does more harm than good.) The truth is a large portion of stable users rely on spamassassin backports. Packaging spamassassin3 right now is probably not all that useful. -- Duncan Findlay
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature