On 2019-04-11 Paul Gevers <[email protected]> wrote: > Control: tags -1 moreinfo
> Hi Andreas, > On 11-04-2019 19:51, Andreas Metzler wrote: >> The second notable change is related to sa-exim. Exim in Debian was >> patched to allow dlopening a localscan() module. The single consumer of >> this patch in Debian is sa-exim. (The patch also originates there.) >> The patch in Debian has been nonfunctional in unstable for quite some >> time (4.92~RC2-1/experimental/18 Dec, 4.92~RC3-1 unstable/26 Dec and >> buster/03 Jan). The issue only popped up end of March on the upstream >> user support ML. >> Looking at the state of sa-exim (dead upstream since 2006 and buggy: >> https://lists.exim.org/lurker/message/20180726.113354.6d03efde.en.html >> #879687) we have decided stop patching exim, which resulted in 4.92-5, >> which >> - improves the example/docs for content-scanning in exim without sa-exim >> - drops the abovementioned patch and the virtual Provides for >> exim4-localscanapi-2.0 and also drops the exim-dev packages (only >> needed for sa-exim). Exim now also Conflicts with sa-exim. > I am probably missing something, but as far as I see it, your packages > can't migrate to testing/buster because it would make sa-exim > uninstallable. uninstallable and unbuildable. > If I am right, please coordinate with the maintainer of > sa-exim (in CC). At least at this moment they should agree that it is > alright to remove sa-exim from buster. I am not seeing any serious bugs > reported against sa-exim so they may not be aware of the issue. I had X-Debbugs-Cc'ed sa-exim@pdo on this report. I will also open a rc bug suggesting sa-exim removal to hash this out properly. cu Andreas -- `What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are so grateful to you.' `I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'
