Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bug#1028031: Main spamassassin.service file missing
92 views
Skip to first unread message
Matt Corallo
Jan 5, 2023, 10:10:04 PM1/5/23
to
Package: spamassassin
Version: 4.0.0-1~bpo11+1
It seems the main spamassassin.service file was lost in the 4.0 upgrade.
Version: 4.0.0-1~bpo11+1
It seems the main spamassassin.service file was lost in the 4.0 upgrade.
Matt Corallo
Jan 5, 2023, 10:40:04 PM1/5/23
to
Ah, sorry for the noise, the package was split. Seems funny to do in a backport.
Should the package split get a changelog notice for the bullseye upgrade? I'd assume most users of
spamassassin actually use the spamd feature, so it being silently removed may be surprising for an
upgrade.
Thanks for maintaining the package!
On 1/5/23 7:09 PM, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Thank you for filing a new Bug report with Debian.
>
> You can follow progress on this Bug here: 1028031: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1028031.
>
> This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
> has been received.
>
> Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
> interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.
>
> Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
> Noah Meyerhans <no...@debian.org>
>
> If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
> send it to 102...@bugs.debian.org.
>
> Please do not send mail to ow...@bugs.debian.org unless you wish
> to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.
>
Should the package split get a changelog notice for the bullseye upgrade? I'd assume most users of
spamassassin actually use the spamd feature, so it being silently removed may be surprising for an
upgrade.
Thanks for maintaining the package!
On 1/5/23 7:09 PM, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Thank you for filing a new Bug report with Debian.
>
> You can follow progress on this Bug here: 1028031: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1028031.
>
> This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
> has been received.
>
> Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
> interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.
>
> Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
> Noah Meyerhans <no...@debian.org>
>
> If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
> send it to 102...@bugs.debian.org.
>
> Please do not send mail to ow...@bugs.debian.org unless you wish
> to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.
>
Noah Meyerhans
Jan 6, 2023, 4:40:03 PM1/6/23
to
On 1/5/2023 7:11 PM, Matt Corallo wrote:
> Ah, sorry for the noise, the package was split. Seems funny to do in a
> backport.
backports pull changes from what's in bookworm (testing). Nothing was
> Ah, sorry for the noise, the package was split. Seems funny to do in a
> backport.
"done" in the backport, it was a straight pull. Preserving bullseye's
package structure would have been significant packaging work and
wouldn't constitute a backport or be appropriate for bullseye-backports.
> Should the package split get a changelog notice for the bullseye
> upgrade? I'd assume most users of spamassassin actually use the spamd
> feature, so it being silently removed may be surprising for an upgrade.
you upgraded, but it's all documented there.
noah
0 new messages