Re: Packaging guidelines with regards to packages that use Clam Antivirus scanner
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 12/22/2011 09:34 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
2011/12/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"<johannbg@xxxxxxxxx>:On 12/22/2011 06:52 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:2011/12/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"<johannbg@xxxxxxxxx>:
Policy is only useful if a) it is believed in
As I see it policy's are something to be followed not put faith in so I fail to understand your point here or see the connection you make with it.
b) it is followed.
Agreed which begs the question what efforts does fpc make, to make sure policy's that are created are actually being followed?
That means finding people who use a package (or class of packages) to see what they are doing and why... and then you can figure out if you can articulate that into a policy first.
Hum failing to understand here as well all the 5 packages are essentially doing the same thing with regards to clamav av
Otherwise the policy ends up causing more headaches than fun.
From my point of view policy's are more about bringing consistency than fun into the distribution.
What level of communication have you had with Enrico or users of the package.
None what so everI personally dont care more for this proposal other than I already have submitted here atleast not to the extent of personally trying to dig up each maintainer and get his opinion on the matter and to be honest I assumed they would be subscribed to this list and would comment on this.
There has not been any movement on the unit files filed a while back for amavisd-new package so to me that maintainer is already unresponsive.
clamav-scanner already has been converted to systemd unit files so it was not on my radar per se but it's config file seem to require users to comment out an example line it and it's unit file differs from what I had already created so his unit file might be righter and should be used as a template for the other ones or is an specific exception thus should not be used also note that package is already part of the clamav suite while the other ones are not and but perhaps should be?
dansguardian seems to be abandon altogether ( clear indicator for that are things like this still open against a component "Please Update Spec File to use %ghost on files in /var/run and /var/lock" ) and does not work et all in it's current state ( all report seem to be related to the packaging of the component not the component it self ) and is the only package that does not use the default template as is, with related modification to it self.
clamsmtp seems to be more inline with the rest ( with the exception of dansguardian ) but contains "Please Update Spec File to use %ghost on files in /var/run and /var/lock" in reports against it which again indicates it lacks maintainer.
With regards to exim-clamav Jaroslav was going to take a look at it and I was waiting to see what came out of it and was going to base the unit files and (re)submit it against the above components with the exception of clamav-scanner.
I simply just noticed a pattern and saw a room for improvements and things could be made consistent with each other ( one is making this a sub package of it's components other are not. clamd.d confs look more or less the same and so on ) now and in the future with proper policy/guidelines and when fixed to meet the policy from the looks of it, it would close more or less all bugs filed against those components in the process but if people dont want to do it and are generally are happy then things stay as they are, broken as they might be or seem to me.
JBG -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
[Home] [Fedora Legacy] [Fedora Desktop] [Red Hat 9 Bible] [Fedora Bible] [Fedora SELinux] [Big List of Linux Books] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [KDE Users] [Fedora Tools]