Mailing List Archive: SPF: Devel

spf_lib_version.h

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

holmgren at lysator

Mar 23, 2007, 5:23 AM

Post #1 of 3 (1434 views)
Permalink

spf_lib_version.h

First, let me introduce myself. I'm a wannabe Debian Developer and also a
contributor to the Exim MTA. My Debian "portfolio":
http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=magnus [at] kibibyte

Since Eric Dorland has orphaned libspf2 in Debian, I was thinking that I could
take care of it instead. It fits with the other anti-spam packages I maintain
(or is trying to get a sponsor for).

Now to the issue: The tarball includes src/include/spf_lib_version.h (which
says that the version is 1.2.1, which it wrong), and configure also generates
src/libspf2/spf_lib_version.h, which isn't removed by the distclean target.
What gives? I haven't figured out which file is actually included by the
source files not in src/libspf2 yet.

--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren [at] lysator / magnus [at] kibibyte
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)

"Exim is better at being younger, whereas sendmail is better for
Scrabble (50 point bonus for clearing your rack)" -- Dave Evans

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007

scott at kitterman

Mar 23, 2007, 11:59 AM

Post #2 of 3 (1321 views)
Permalink

Re: spf_lib_version.h [In reply to]

On Friday 23 March 2007 08:23, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> First, let me introduce myself. I'm a wannabe Debian Developer and also a
> contributor to the Exim MTA. My Debian "portfolio":
> http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=magnus [at] kibibyte
>
> Since Eric Dorland has orphaned libspf2 in Debian, I was thinking that I
> could take care of it instead. It fits with the other anti-spam packages I
> maintain (or is trying to get a sponsor for).
>
> Now to the issue: The tarball includes src/include/spf_lib_version.h (which
> says that the version is 1.2.1, which it wrong), and configure also
> generates src/libspf2/spf_lib_version.h, which isn't removed by the
> distclean target. What gives? I haven't figured out which file is actually
> included by the source files not in src/libspf2 yet.

I think that would be great. I have been doing some downstream work in Ubuntu
because I was the SPF guy that was packaging stuff for Ubuntu. When it comes
to C programs, my knowledge is very minimal and I, for one, would be grateful
to have someone upstream in Debian maintaining the package.

I do know from working with building the package that the clean rules aren't
getting the job done (building in pbuilder has worked best for me).

Here are the changes I've made in Ubuntu that will be in the next release and
that I'd recommend for Debian (Debian BTS url is also supplied if I have it):

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libspf2/+bug/79683
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=306875

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libspf2/+bug/65952
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=392793
Note that the debian/rules file in this patch does not have the changes for
the update-alterative changes in 306875, so the debian/rules changes for
these two fixes have to be merged.

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libspf2/+bug/92569
This one is not in BTS yet.

Scott K

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007

holmgren at lysator

Mar 23, 2007, 4:51 PM

Post #3 of 3 (1339 views)
Permalink

Re: spf_lib_version.h [In reply to]

On Friday 23 March 2007 19:59, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Friday 23 March 2007 08:23, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> > Since Eric Dorland has orphaned libspf2 in Debian, I was thinking that I
> > could take care of it instead. It fits with the other anti-spam packages
> > I maintain (or is trying to get a sponsor for).
> >
> I think that would be great. I have been doing some downstream work in
> Ubuntu because I was the SPF guy that was packaging stuff for Ubuntu. When
> it comes to C programs, my knowledge is very minimal and I, for one, would
> be grateful to have someone upstream in Debian maintaining the package.
>
> I do know from working with building the package that the clean rules
> aren't getting the job done (building in pbuilder has worked best for me).
>
> Here are the changes I've made in Ubuntu that will be in the next release
> and that I'd recommend for Debian (Debian BTS url is also supplied if I
> have it):

I see that you saw that I have prepared an updated package for Debian, but for
the rest, the files can be found in

ftp://ftp.kibibyte.se/debian/pool/main/libs/libspf2/

or you can add

deb-src ftp://ftp.kibibyte.se/debian/

to your /etc/apt/sources.list

> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libspf2/+bug/79683
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=306875

That seems to be in -4ubuntu1 which I included right away.
>
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libspf2/+bug/65952
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=392793
> Note that the debian/rules file in this patch does not have the changes for
> the update-alterative changes in 306875, so the debian/rules changes for
> these two fixes have to be merged.

I went for simple-patchsys ... I didn't realise that there was a dpatch.mk in
cdbs. Maybe I should switch, because then I can represent the CRLF/LF
conversion and the spf_lib_version.h fix as dpatches.

--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren [at] lysator
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)

-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=1007

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads