Hi debian-volatile, Before responding to this e-mail, I had a quick browse through the debian-volatile archives. I was fairly surprised to see the amount of traffic SpamAssassin seems to generate on this list. I was also completely unaware of the amount of review that has been done on the SpamAssassin packages (for example this thread: http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2005/12/msg00013.html) and it's clear to me that we would probably all benefit from better co-operation. :-) On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:12:39AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote: > I am writing to ask if you would be interested in updating the version > of spamassassin that is in volatile. I certainly am interested in you > updating it, so if there is anything I can do to help, please let me > know. My stance on debian-volatile has been pretty much the same for a while: if you'd like to take care of SpamAssassin for volatile, please go right ahead. In the past, Jesus, my co-maintainer has taken on this task (so maybe check with him first). Unfortunately, in the past at least, I've been unwilling to do this work myself. My unwillingness stems pretty much from the fact that I have no idea how debian-volatile works, what is required of a maintainer to get a package into debian-volatile, how strict the rules are, how to make an upload, who makes the decisions on what's acceptable and what's not, etc. (I mentioned some of these concerns about a year ago in http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2005/06/msg00035.html, but since then, I've seen no further documentation produced. :-( ) I suspect I'm not the only maintainer that doesn't really know how volatile works. Anyways, I'm happy to help out wherever I can; but I'm still going to refuse to prepare a package for volatile until I get some explanations on how the whole process works. -- Duncan Findlay
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature