[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: possible mass bug filing: spamassassin 3

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it'll still go out of date well before sarge+1's release.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

The truth is a large portion of stable users rely on spamassassin
backports. Packaging spamassassin3 right now is probably not all that

Duncan Findlay

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: