You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by da...@chaosreigns.com on 2011/05/16 20:08:54 UTC
Updating debian build directory?
Trunk and 3.3 contain a debian directory, which contains the stuff
necessary to build a Debian package. But it hasn't been updated since
2004, and as far as I can tell is currently not in any way usable.
I was successful with basically just copying the debian directory over from
what is currently used by Debian and Ubuntu, to set up daily Ubuntu builds
from trunk: https://launchpad.net/~darxus/+archive/spamassassin-daily
I'd like to wipe the existing directory in trunk, and copy the current
version over from the Debian / Ubuntu package (which is a newer
version than the one I used for daily builds). What do you folks think?
I wouldn't suggest doing this in 3.3, except that I believe the existing
stuff is actually useless, so there would be no harm. So I think it
would be good to add it to 3.3 as well.
The existing Debian packaging includes a pkgrules directory containing
a copy of the rules. I'm thinking that should just be eliminated?
Maybe run sa-update from the install script?
--
"I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance." - Nietzsche
http://www.ChaosReigns.com
Re: Updating debian build directory?
Posted by Noah Meyerhans <fr...@morgul.net>.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:46:15AM -0700, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:08:54PM -0400, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> > I'd like to wipe the existing directory in trunk, and copy the current
> > version over from the Debian / Ubuntu package (which is a newer
> > version than the one I used for daily builds). What do you folks think?
>
> +1 (speaking as the debian package maintainer)
Sorry, I actually mis-read your proposal. I agree with Mark Martinec's
suggestion that all distro-build stuff be dumped. It's not needed and
is not generally useful (especially when it is as stale as it currently
is). Copying the current stuff from the Debian package will solve the
immediate issue of the debian/ directory being stale, but won't do
anything to keep it fresh in the future.
noah
Re: Updating debian build directory?
Posted by Noah Meyerhans <fr...@morgul.net>.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:08:54PM -0400, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> I'd like to wipe the existing directory in trunk, and copy the current
> version over from the Debian / Ubuntu package (which is a newer
> version than the one I used for daily builds). What do you folks think?
+1 (speaking as the debian package maintainer)
> I wouldn't suggest doing this in 3.3, except that I believe the existing
> stuff is actually useless, so there would be no harm. So I think it
> would be good to add it to 3.3 as well.
I'd be happy to see it removed immediately. It's unlikely that anybody
is depending on it.
> The existing Debian packaging includes a pkgrules directory containing
> a copy of the rules. I'm thinking that should just be eliminated?
> Maybe run sa-update from the install script?
I don't want to add an install-time dependency on a functioning internet
connection (I know this may sound silly to some people), and I want
spamassassin to be functional upon installation, so I prefer to avoid
running sa-update during installation.
I only recently re-subscribed to this list, so I'm not sure what the
latest plans are, in terms of distributing a rules tarball. I've seen
some posts on this list that suggest that there may be a growing trend
toward no longer distributing the rules tarball. If that happens, I
would likely include a snapshot of the latest ruleset as distributed by
sa-update.
I'm not opposed to adding a debconf note to the postinstall script
recommending that people enable automated sa-update rules. The
framework for doing so is included in the package, but disabled by
default.
noah
Re: Updating debian build directory?
Posted by "Warren Togami Jr." <wt...@gmail.com>.
On 5/16/2011 8:21 AM, Mark Martinec wrote:
> IMO the distribution-specific packaging stuff has no right to be
> kept in a generic Unix/Linux/Windows package like SpamAssassin
> and should be wiped out entirely. The package maintainers know
> their job and their distribution most intimately and should have a
> full jurisdiction over their packaging. Having two alternatives offered
> is just confusing to end-users.
+1
Furthermore, the .spec file should be removed from the tarball as well.
It has NEVER been useful for Red Hat or Fedora, and it doesn't reflect
the reality of any other RPM based distribution either.
Warren
Re: Updating debian build directory?
Posted by Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si>.
darxus writes:
> Trunk and 3.3 contain a debian directory, which contains the stuff
> necessary to build a Debian package. But it hasn't been updated since
> 2004, and as far as I can tell is currently not in any way usable.
>
> I was successful with basically just copying the debian directory over from
> what is currently used by Debian and Ubuntu, to set up daily Ubuntu builds
> from trunk: https://launchpad.net/~darxus/+archive/spamassassin-daily
>
> I'd like to wipe the existing directory in trunk, and copy the current
> version over from the Debian / Ubuntu package (which is a newer
> version than the one I used for daily builds). What do you folks think?
> I wouldn't suggest doing this in 3.3, except that I believe the existing
> stuff is actually useless, so there would be no harm. So I think it
> would be good to add it to 3.3 as well.
>
> The existing Debian packaging includes a pkgrules directory containing
> a copy of the rules. I'm thinking that should just be eliminated?
> Maybe run sa-update from the install script?
IMO the distribution-specific packaging stuff has no right to be
kept in a generic Unix/Linux/Windows package like SpamAssassin
and should be wiped out entirely. The package maintainers know
their job and their distribution most intimately and should have a
full jurisdiction over their packaging. Having two alternatives offered
is just confusing to end-users.
> I wouldn't suggest doing this in 3.3, except that I believe the existing
> stuff is actually useless, so there would be no harm. So I think it
> would be good to add it to 3.3 as well.
It would be safer to leave any changes in this area to 3.4.
Mark
Re: [SA-dev] Updating debian build directory?
Posted by Daniel McDonald <da...@austinenergy.com>.
On 5/16/11 4:46 PM, "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com> wrote:
>
>> That would prevent the create-package-from-tarball scripts from functioning,
> Can you elaborate on this statement? How would a contrib directory
> break something? Is it because they would see the existing .deb file
> (for example) in a subdirectory?
No, because the packaging files are looking in specific directories. For
example, rpmbuild -ta looks inside the tarball in the ./redhat directory for
a .spec file, and uses that to create an rpm. If the .spec is in a
different directory, then rpmbuild -ta won't find it. The user would then
need to manually unpack the tarball, dig through the contrib directory,
massage the .spec and re-pack the tarball in the format that rpmbuild is
expecting.
At that point, it's easier to grab a .spec file from a known good src rpm,
make the two or three edits required for a new version, and run rpmbuild -ba
>> and would be the least desirable of all solutions. My preference would be
>> to discard Debian and RedHat directories completely and let the package
>> maintainers do their own job.
> I don't disagree but I'd like to see something that makes everyone happy
> if possible.
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281
Re: [SA-dev] Updating debian build directory?
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
> That would prevent the create-package-from-tarball scripts from functioning,
Can you elaborate on this statement? How would a contrib directory
break something? Is it because they would see the existing .deb file
(for example) in a subdirectory?
> and would be the least desirable of all solutions. My preference would be
> to discard Debian and RedHat directories completely and let the package
> maintainers do their own job.
I don't disagree but I'd like to see something that makes everyone happy
if possible.
Regards,
KAM
Re: [SA-dev] Updating debian build directory?
Posted by Daniel McDonald <da...@austinenergy.com>.
On 5/16/11 4:00 PM, "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com> wrote:
> Darxus,
>
> I think you started the chain to update the debian files and
> unfortunately, we now have Warren, Mark, Noah and Myself weighing in
> recommending that the debian (AND I believe the redhat stuff) be removed.
>
> One suggestion I have is to move the items to a contrib dir implying
> they are as-is and not supported. Then perhaps even place them in a
> pre-3.3.2 (or pre-3.4.0 dir) and a <current release> dir so if we want
> to add the new debian files, they can go in that contrib directory. And
> otherwise people know what is outdated and what hasn't been touched, etc.
That would prevent the create-package-from-tarball scripts from functioning,
and would be the least desirable of all solutions. My preference would be
to discard Debian and RedHat directories completely and let the package
maintainers do their own job.
--
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281
Re: [SA-dev] Updating debian build directory?
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
Darxus,
I think you started the chain to update the debian files and
unfortunately, we now have Warren, Mark, Noah and Myself weighing in
recommending that the debian (AND I believe the redhat stuff) be removed.
One suggestion I have is to move the items to a contrib dir implying
they are as-is and not supported. Then perhaps even place them in a
pre-3.3.2 (or pre-3.4.0 dir) and a <current release> dir so if we want
to add the new debian files, they can go in that contrib directory. And
otherwise people know what is outdated and what hasn't been touched, etc.
Regards,
KAM
On 5/16/2011 4:54 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
> 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).
>
Re: [SA-dev] Updating debian build directory?
Posted by Adam Katz <an...@khopis.com>.
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).
Re: Updating debian build directory?
Posted by da...@chaosreigns.com.
On 05/16, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> Do we want to remove all the files and leave a README instead? In
> short, should we be trying to maintain these files at all?
More immediately relevant, this is how I was going to test 3.3.2 on my
server. Installing from tarballs or cpan is too messy.
The debian build directory isn't generally something that needs to get
updated often.
On 05/16, Mark Martinec wrote:
> full jurisdiction over their packaging. Having two alternatives offered
> is just confusing to end-users.
And as someone who has, for years, been building stuff from tarballs,
installing .debs, and occasionally lucky enough to find a tarball that
allows me to build a .deb from the latest source: This isn't going to
confuse anyone.
At worst, it gets neglected, stops working (the state it's currently in),
and when people attempt to run dpkg-buildpackage, it fails, they feel
slightly disappointed, and resort to one of the other methods (tar,
cpan, or probably older binary package).
As evidence, note the complete lack of hysteria resulting from the current
debian directory not updated since 2004.
On 05/16, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I would again suggest a README pointing to the location of these
> files for people to grap if they so deem necessary rather than
> another requirement to maintain.
That's significantly more complicated than running dpkg-buildpackage. I
don't think I've seen anyone recommend that anywhere. And updating it in
the repo is easy work for me to do.
What's your objection to including it?
It makes using the latest versions easier for some people, without
harming anything.
> I have no idea if these are up-to-date but I doubt it. They likely
> are a good starting point, though.
This is what made me think the RedHat packaging information is up to date:
On 05/14, McDonald, Dan wrote:
> Built an rpm fine. Only change from the Mandriva source rpm in cooker (
Actually, the download page also says building an rpm (RedHat package)
from the tarball works:
Simply run:
sudo rpmbuild -tb Mail-SpamAssassin-3.3.1.tar.gz
- http://spamassassin.apache.org/downloads.cgi
--
"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries of life disappear and
life stands explained." - Mark Twain
http://www.ChaosReigns.com
Re: Updating debian build directory?
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>.
My $0.02 is:
Do we want to remove all the files and leave a README instead? In
short, should we be trying to maintain these files at all?
If we go the route you are saying, where did those files come from and
what is their licensing, etc.?
Regards,
KAM
On 5/16/2011 2:08 PM, darxus@chaosreigns.com wrote:
> Trunk and 3.3 contain a debian directory, which contains the stuff
> necessary to build a Debian package. But it hasn't been updated since
> 2004, and as far as I can tell is currently not in any way usable.
>
> I was successful with basically just copying the debian directory over from
> what is currently used by Debian and Ubuntu, to set up daily Ubuntu builds
> from trunk: https://launchpad.net/~darxus/+archive/spamassassin-daily
>
> I'd like to wipe the existing directory in trunk, and copy the current
> version over from the Debian / Ubuntu package (which is a newer
> version than the one I used for daily builds). What do you folks think?
> I wouldn't suggest doing this in 3.3, except that I believe the existing
> stuff is actually useless, so there would be no harm. So I think it
> would be good to add it to 3.3 as well.
>
>
> The existing Debian packaging includes a pkgrules directory containing
> a copy of the rules. I'm thinking that should just be eliminated?
> Maybe run sa-update from the install script?
>