Update on the MailScanner in Fedora packaging situation

[David Nalley]

13 packages definitely need to be packaged. Mostly perl modules
23 packages already exist. For the most part these are on par or later
versions than mailscanner includes. 2 perl modules look a bit out of
date and we might file bugs requesting an update with the current
maintainers.
4 packages have some very close name matches - so we'll need to check
on the status of those in the source and see if they are really
already existent or also need to be built.

Details here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailScanner_in_Fedora#List_of_MailScanner_...

Anyone want to start staking claims?? We can trade reviews amongst
ourselves and hopefully whittle this list down quickly.

[Eli Wapniarski]

So.... I guess the first step would be to get the missing perl modules packaged. I would
suggest waiting until F-9 is officially dead. So we don't leave F-9 users stuck in
security patch limbo.

Eli

On Friday 22 May 2009 22:39:01 David Nalley wrote:
>  13 packages definitely need to be packaged. Mostly perl modules
>  23 packages already exist. For the most part these are on par or later
>  versions than mailscanner includes. 2 perl modules look a bit out of
>  date and we might file bugs requesting an update with the current
>  maintainers.
>  4 packages have some very close name matches - so we'll need to check
>  on the status of those in the source and see if they are really
>  already existent or also need to be built.
>  
>  Details here:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailScanner_in_Fedora#List_of_MailScanner_...
>  
>  Anyone want to start staking claims?? We can trade reviews amongst
>  ourselves and hopefully whittle this list down quickly.
>  _______________________________________________
>  mailscanner-sig mailing list
>  mailscanner-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
>   
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

[David Nalley]

We don't have to package for F-9 (when you request CVS you can request
only certain versions) and the last few of my rpms I have explicitly
left off F-9.
Sooo, don't let that stop you. Lets try and announce here what we are
working on, so as not to duplicate work and to trade reviews.



On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Eli Wapniarski
<eli(a)orbsky.homelinux.org&gt; wrote:
>  So.... I guess the first step would be to get the missing perl
> modules packaged. I would suggest waiting until F-9 is officially dead. So we don't
> leave F-9 users stuck in security patch limbo.
>
>  Eli
>
>  On Friday 22 May 2009 22:39:01 David Nalley wrote:
> > 13 packages definitely need to be packaged. Mostly perl modules
> > 23 packages already exist. For the most part these are on par or later
> > versions than mailscanner includes. 2 perl modules look a bit out of
> > date and we might file bugs requesting an update with the current
> > maintainers.
> > 4 packages have some very close name matches - so we'll need to check
> > on the status of those in the source and see if they are really
> > already existent or also need to be built.
> >
> > Details here:
> >
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailScanner_in_Fedora#List_of_MailScanner_...
> >
> > Anyone want to start staking claims?? We can trade reviews amongst
> > ourselves and hopefully whittle this list down quickly.
> > _______________________________________________
> > mailscanner-sig mailing list
> > mailscanner-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
> >
>
>  --
>  This message has been scanned for viruses and
>  dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>  believed to be clean.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  mailscanner-sig mailing list
>  mailscanner-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
>

[Eli Wapniarski]

OK then. It will take me a little while to get to it. But, I will start soonest possible

Do you know of anyway to track cpan for the latest version of any paticular module?

Eli

On Monday 25 May 2009 18:39:30 David Nalley wrote:
>  We don't have to package for F-9 (when you request CVS you can
> request
>  only certain versions) and the last few of my rpms I have explicitly
>  left off F-9.
>  Sooo, don't let that stop you. Lets try and announce here what we are
>  working on, so as not to duplicate work and to trade reviews.
>  
>  
>  
>  On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Eli Wapniarski
>  <eli(a)orbsky.homelinux.org&gt; wrote:
>  > So.... I guess the first step would be to get the missing perl modules packaged. I
> would suggest waiting until F-9 is officially dead. So we don't leave F-9 users stuck
> in security patch limbo.
>  >
>  > Eli
>  >
>  > On Friday 22 May 2009 22:39:01 David Nalley wrote:
>  >> 13 packages definitely need to be packaged. Mostly perl modules
>  >> 23 packages already exist. For the most part these are on par or later
>  >> versions than mailscanner includes. 2 perl modules look a bit out of
>  >> date and we might file bugs requesting an update with the current
>  >> maintainers.
>  >> 4 packages have some very close name matches - so we'll need to check
>  >> on the status of those in the source and see if they are really
>  >> already existent or also need to be built.
>  >>
>  >> Details here:
>  >>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailScanner_in_Fedora#List_of_MailScanner_...
>  >>
>  >> Anyone want to start staking claims?? We can trade reviews amongst
>  >> ourselves and hopefully whittle this list down quickly.
>  >> _______________________________________________
>  >> mailscanner-sig mailing list
>  >> mailscanner-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
>  >>
>  >
>  > --
>  > This message has been scanned for viruses and
>  > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>  > believed to be clean.
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > mailscanner-sig mailing list
>  > mailscanner-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
>  >
>  _______________________________________________
>  mailscanner-sig mailing list
>  mailscanner-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
>   
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

[David Nalley]

I saw some tool linked to from the fp.o wiki recently over the weekend
that purported to do this. But unfortiunately, can't for the life of
me, find it now.


On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Eli Wapniarski
<eli(a)orbsky.homelinux.org&gt; wrote:
>  OK then. It will take me a little while to get to it. But, I will
> start soonest possible
>
>  Do you know of anyway to track cpan for the latest version of any paticular module?
>
>  Eli
>
>  On Monday 25 May 2009 18:39:30 David Nalley wrote:
> > We don't have to package for F-9 (when you request CVS you can request
> > only certain versions) and the last few of my rpms I have explicitly
> > left off F-9.
> > Sooo, don't let that stop you. Lets try and announce here what we are
> > working on, so as not to duplicate work and to trade reviews.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Eli Wapniarski
> > <eli(a)orbsky.homelinux.org&gt; wrote:
> > > So.... I guess the first step would be to get the missing perl modules packaged.
> I would suggest waiting until F-9 is officially dead. So we don't leave F-9 users
> stuck in security patch limbo.
> > >
> > > Eli
> > >
> > > On Friday 22 May 2009 22:39:01 David Nalley wrote:
> > >> 13 packages definitely need to be packaged. Mostly perl modules
> > >> 23 packages already exist. For the most part these are on par or later
> > >> versions than mailscanner includes. 2 perl modules look a bit out of
> > >> date and we might file bugs requesting an update with the current
> > >> maintainers.
> > >> 4 packages have some very close name matches - so we'll need to check
> > >> on the status of those in the source and see if they are really
> > >> already existent or also need to be built.
> > >>
> > >> Details here:
> > >>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MailScanner_in_Fedora#List_of_MailScanner_...
> > >>
> > >> Anyone want to start staking claims?? We can trade reviews amongst
> > >> ourselves and hopefully whittle this list down quickly.
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> mailscanner-sig mailing list
> > >> mailscanner-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
> > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message has been scanned for viruses and
> > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> > > believed to be clean.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > mailscanner-sig mailing list
> > > mailscanner-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > mailscanner-sig mailing list
> > mailscanner-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
> >
>
>  --
>  This message has been scanned for viruses and
>  dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
>  believed to be clean.
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  mailscanner-sig mailing list
>  mailscanner-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner-sig
>