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

Bug#1034764: marked as done (unblock: spf-engine/3.0.4-1)

Your message dated Thu, 27 Apr 2023 19:31:01 +0200
with message-id <fe63c1f7-f962-8f0a-53cd-dce931c2b65b@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#1034764: unblock: spf-engine/3.0.4-1
has caused the Debian Bug report #1034764,
regarding unblock: spf-engine/3.0.4-1
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1034764: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1034764
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package spf-engine

(Please provide enough (but not too much) information to help
the release team to judge the request efficiently. E.g. by
filling in the sections below.)

[ Reason ]
The only change this revision includes is an update to the logcheck
regex to account for logging changes in Bookworm.  For users that use
logcheck, not having this fix in would somewhat defeat the purpose of
using it.

[ Impact ]
Logcheck doesn't work correctly for this package.

[ Tests ]
This was tested by the submitter.  See #1034727 [1] for details.  I
don't use logcheck, so I didn't test it myself.  This is how I've
generally handled these submissions in the past and it's always worked
out fine.

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1034727

[ Risks ]
Change is trivial.  The only potential risk is that logcheck will
continue not to work correctly in some way.  I don't think there's any
real risk of making things worse.

[ Checklist ]
  [X] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
  [X] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
  [X] attach debdiff against the package in testing

[ Other info ]
The updated package is uploaded to Experimental.  If approved, the
Unstable upload would have an additional d/changelog entry, but no other
changes.

unblock spf-engine/3.0.4-1

diff -Nru spf-engine-3.0.4/debian/changelog spf-engine-3.0.4/debian/changelog
--- spf-engine-3.0.4/debian/changelog	2023-04-09 09:24:11.000000000 -0400
+++ spf-engine-3.0.4/debian/changelog	2023-04-23 15:49:01.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+spf-engine (3.0.4-2~exp1) experimental; urgency=medium
+
+  * Update logcheck rule for postfix-policyd-spf-python to account for logging
+    changes in Bookworm (Closes: #1034727)
+    - Thanks to Mathias Gibbens for the report and the fix
+
+ -- Scott Kitterman <scott@kitterman.com>  Sun, 23 Apr 2023 15:49:01 -0400
+
 spf-engine (3.0.4-1) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * New upstream release
diff -Nru spf-engine-3.0.4/debian/logcheck/postfix-policyd-spf-python spf-engine-3.0.4/debian/logcheck/postfix-policyd-spf-python
--- spf-engine-3.0.4/debian/logcheck/postfix-policyd-spf-python	2022-11-30 10:25:57.000000000 -0500
+++ spf-engine-3.0.4/debian/logcheck/postfix-policyd-spf-python	2023-04-23 15:48:48.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,2 +1 @@
-+^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ policyd-spf\[[0-9]+\]: (Pass|Neutral|None|Softfail|Fail|Temperror|Permerror); identity=(helo|mailfrom); client-ip=[0-9a-f.:]+; helo=.*; envelope-from=.*; receiver=
-
+^(\w{3} [ :[:digit:]]{11}|[0-9T:.+-]{32}) [._[:alnum:]-]+ policyd-spf\[[0-9]+\]:( :)? prepend Received-SPF: (Pass|Neutral|None|Softfail|Fail|Temperror|Permerror) \((helo|mailfrom)\) identity=(helo|mailfrom); client-ip=[0-9a-f.:]+; helo=.*; envelope-from=.*; receiver=

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

On 23-04-2023 22:19, Scott Kitterman wrote:

unblock spf-engine/3.0.4-1


unblocked -2.

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: