Re: Upload of dspam to testing-proposed-update

2012-08-13 Thread Thomas Preud'homme
Le lundi 13 août 2012 02:21:51, Adam D. Barratt a écrit :
 
 Looking at the changes in unstable, it might be worth including the fix
 for #669993 too?

Indeed, release goal and the changes are small. I forgot about fixes made along 
the packaging of the new version. I'll update the debdiff and look for someone 
to upload it.

  
  [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=644392#73
 
 Is there a plan to get that fixed in unstable?

Yes, absolutely. I focused on testing because the faster it's fixed here, the 
better for Debian. I'll prepare another debdiff for unstable.

 
 A bug would be preferable, as it makes it much easier to track.  You can
 do that once the package has been uploaded though - britney won't
 attempt to migrate a tpu package until all architectures are available.

Ack.

 
 Regards,
 
 Adam

Best regards,

Thomas Preud'homme


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201208131501.55907.robo...@celest.fr



Re: Upload of dspam to testing-proposed-update

2012-08-12 Thread Adam D. Barratt
On Sun, 2012-08-12 at 10:38 +0800, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
 I'm writing to you as I would like your approval to upload dspam package to 
 testing-proposed-update in order to fix bug #644392. As you can see, the 
 version in unstable contains to many change for an unblock request and an 
 upload via testing-proposed-updates is necessary.

Looking at the changes in unstable, it might be worth including the fix
for #669993 too?

 The patch comes from upstream and consist of fixing a commented command line 
 to 
 call exim in dspam configuration. If users uncomment the current command 
 line, 
 data loss can result from it, as explain the message [0].
 
 [0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=644392#73

Is there a plan to get that fixed in unstable?

 Except for the upload via testing-proposed-update, I think the upload respect 
 the criterias: minor changes to fix an RC bug. You'll find attached the 
 debdiff. 
 As soon as I get your approval I'll ask a DD to upload the package (I don't 
 have my gpg key where I am right now) and will come back to you once all 
 architectures have build the package to ask you to approve the upload. By the 
 way, is this step done via BTS or via mail to the ML?

A bug would be preferable, as it makes it much easier to track.  You can
do that once the package has been uploaded though - britney won't
attempt to migrate a tpu package until all architectures are available.

Regards,

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/1344795711.2978.72.ca...@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org



Upload of dspam to testing-proposed-update

2012-08-11 Thread Thomas Preud'homme
Greetings Release Team,

I'm writing to you as I would like your approval to upload dspam package to 
testing-proposed-update in order to fix bug #644392. As you can see, the 
version in unstable contains to many change for an unblock request and an 
upload via testing-proposed-updates is necessary.

The patch comes from upstream and consist of fixing a commented command line to 
call exim in dspam configuration. If users uncomment the current command line, 
data loss can result from it, as explain the message [0].

[0] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=644392#73

Except for the upload via testing-proposed-update, I think the upload respect 
the criterias: minor changes to fix an RC bug. You'll find attached the 
debdiff. 
As soon as I get your approval I'll ask a DD to upload the package (I don't 
have my gpg key where I am right now) and will come back to you once all 
architectures have build the package to ask you to approve the upload. By the 
way, is this step done via BTS or via mail to the ML?

Best regards,

Thomas Preud'homme
diff -Nru dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/changelog dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/changelog
--- dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/changelog	2012-02-11 05:05:38.0 +0800
+++ dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/changelog	2012-08-12 01:01:23.0 +0800
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+dspam (3.10.1+dfsg-5) testing-proposed-updates; urgency=low
+
+  * Team upload.
+  * Upload via testing-proposed-updates as unstable contains a new upstream
+version.
+  * Cherry-pick patch from upstream to recommend using -oi when using dspam
+with exim (Closes: #644392).
+
+ -- Thomas Preud'homme robo...@celest.fr  Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:25:43 +0800
+
 dspam (3.10.1+dfsg-4) unstable; urgency=low
 
   * Apply patch from upstream to use POSIX::ctime() instead of deprecated
diff -Nru dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/dspam-documents/exim4/dspam.conf dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/dspam-documents/exim4/dspam.conf
--- dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/dspam-documents/exim4/dspam.conf	2012-02-11 05:05:38.0 +0800
+++ dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/dspam-documents/exim4/dspam.conf	2012-08-12 01:01:23.0 +0800
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
 # Other popular configurations:
 #TrustedDeliveryAgent /usr/cyrus/bin/deliver	# Cyrus
 #TrustedDeliveryAgent /bin/maildrop		# Maildrop
-#TrustedDeliveryAgent /usr/sbin/exim -oMr spam-scanned $u # Exim
+#TrustedDeliveryAgent /usr/sbin/exim -oMr spam-scanned -oi $u # Exim
 TrustedDeliveryAgent /usr/sbin/exim4 # Exim
 #
 #TrustedDeliveryAgent /usr/bin/procmail
diff -Nru dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/patches/fix_exim_integration_doc dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/patches/fix_exim_integration_doc
--- dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/patches/fix_exim_integration_doc	1970-01-01 08:00:00.0 +0800
+++ dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/debian/patches/fix_exim_integration_doc	2012-08-12 01:01:07.0 +0800
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+Description: Fix documentation about exim integration
+
+Using dspam with exim requires to call exim with option -oi to avoid mails
+from being truncated. This commit modify the documentation and configuration
+file to add the -oi option when calling exim.
+
+Author: Kenneth Marshall k...@rice.edu
+Origin: upstream, http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=29626440
+Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/644392
+Forwarded: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=20120802190055.GF15829%40aart.rice.eduforum_name=dspam-user
+Last-Update: 2012-08-12
+
+--- dspam-3.10.1+dfsg.orig/CHANGELOG
 dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/CHANGELOG
+@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
++[20121202:2115] sbajic: Update documentation for Exim integration.
++
+ Version 3.10.1
+ --
+ 
+--- dspam-3.10.1+dfsg.orig/doc/exim.txt
 dspam-3.10.1+dfsg/doc/exim.txt
+@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
+-$Id: exim.txt,v 1.1 2005/03/11 21:16:03 jonz Exp $
++$Id: exim.txt,v 1.2 2012/08/02 21:09:23 sbajic Exp $
+ 
+ EXIM 4 INTEGRATION
+ 
+@@ -40,11 +40,17 @@ domain as part of the username:
+ 
+   command = /usr/local/bin/dspam --deliver=innocent --user $local_part@$domain -- %u
+ 
+-Finally, you will need to configure and compile DSPAM. DSPAM will most likely
+-end up calling exim again for delivery, using the spam-scanned protocol to
+-identify scanned messages. The most common example is:
+-
+-   ./configure --with-delivery-agent=/usr/sbin/exim -oMr spam-scanned
++Finally, you will need to configure and compile DSPAM. You can configure
++DSPAM with the appropriate LDA using --with-delivery-agent= at configure
++time or by specifying TrustedDeliveryAgent in dspam.conf. DSPAM will most
++likely end up calling exim again for delivery, using the spam-scanned
++protocol to identify scanned messages. The most common example is:
++
++  ./configure --with-delivery-agent=/usr/local/sbin/exim -oMr spam-scanned -oi
++
++Note: DSPAM expects the LDA to NOT provide the line with a single dot (.)
++processing to indicate the end of data that a MTA must provide to meet the
++SMTP RFC, hence the -oi option to exim above.
+ 
+ RUNNING WITHOUT PRIVILEGED EXIM USERS
+ 
+--- dspam-3.10.1