On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 02:07:14PM +0100, Philipp Kern <pk...@debian.org> wrote: > clone 564576 -1 > reassign -1 ftp.debian.org > retitle -1 RM: libspf -- RoQA; unmaintained, buggy > severity -1 normal > thanks > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 12:05:55PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:56:32AM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > I replied directly, rather than to the bug by mistake. > > > > > > I will contact the maintainers of the two rdepends (spfmilter and > > > whitelister) > > > to see if they will fix libspf0, port their packages to libspf2 (which > > > does > > > support IPv6), or have them removed. > > > > Given that the orphan bug is already quite old (2007, #433108) and that it > > causes data loss, let's get rid of it. Filing bugs against its reverse > > dependencies because the library is going away. > > > > I'll try to remember to ask for its removal in a few weeks and upgrade those > > bugs to serious then. > > There's only one rdep left (spfmilter) where the maintainer did not > reply. So let's get rid of libspf.
I did reply -- only I forgot to actually send it. Oops. No disagreement from here; the reply I never sent is below: It's not really maintained upstream anymore. An attempt to port it to libsfp2 was made a few years ago, but it was a much older version of libspf2 (with big API differences) and it was never stable. I don't have the cycles to port it; in addition, spf-milter-python appears to be a suitably functional replacement. Given those facts, I suppose dropping it is for the best. -- Mike Markley <m...@markley.org> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
