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>:
<snip>
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 ever
I 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
