First, I'm a big Debian fan. If we're including the RPM stuff, we should include the DEB stuff. I agree with Darxus in that it is indeed quite useful and doesn't create clutter or wasted bits since it is in its own well-marked directory and is very small.
That said, its presence in our releases implies WE are supporting it. While I would prefer it stay, I have to ultimately agree with Mark (who happens to also be the FreeBSD package maintainer) when he said: > The package maintainers know their job and their distribution most > intimately and should have a full jurisdiction over their packaging. We have the RPM information in our source tree. We also have one of the Fedora (upstream -1) packagers with commit permissions (Warren). If he is willing to keep it in sync, we can keep it. Otherwise, it will grow stale and should therefore be pruned (or at least marked as such). https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spamassassin We have the DEB pieces in our source tree too, though Noah Meyerhans, the Debian (upstream -1) maintainer is not an SA developer. Duncan Findley is both a Debian and SA developer, but seems dormant in both. I'm behind the ball in my plan to get Debian developer status. Based on this, we should probably remove the debian directory. http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/spamassassin.html The clutter point is well taken too; even assuming another sufficiently popular system has a similarly small and segregated footprint and a maintainer willing to sync things up, there's the question of how valuable it is. RPM and DEB are special cases because of large number of derivatives that pull from Fedora or Debian in addition to the non-derivatives that go direct, like Mandriva, SUSE, and Fink (OS X).
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
