Thread: [Dspam-devel] Status of development of dspam
Brought to you by:
paulcockings,
sbajic
From: Thomas Preud'h. <ro...@ce...> - 2013-11-26 14:50:02
|
Hi there, TL;DR: maintainer of dspam's Debian package speaking. I would like to know what is the current status of the development of dspam. As for any software, bugs are regularly found in dspam. Everytime a Debian user has reported such a bug, I did my best to triage it, debug it if it's a real bug and if possible provide a patch in dspam's bug tracker. However, I didn't see any reaction to my bug report there and there was no new commit in dspam since august 2012. There is also not much traffic on this mailing list. Therefore I am wondering what is the future of dspam. You might already know it, a stable release of Debian is supported for about 3 years. I commited myself to support dspam (in version 3.10.1) in the current Debian release starting from october 2013 but given the current momentum, I am wondering if I will do the same for the next release. So I'm waiting to hear from you about the plan regarding dspam. Is there still some people working on it? Will there be a new release soon? What about the patches reported with a patch? Best regards, Thomas Preud'homme |
From: Tom H. <to...@wh...> - 2013-11-27 20:28:43
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 26-11-13 15:34, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: > Hi there, Hi Thomas, > > TL;DR: maintainer of dspam's Debian package speaking. I would like > to know what is the current status of the development of dspam. > > As for any software, bugs are regularly found in dspam. Everytime a > Debian user has reported such a bug, I did my best to triage it, > debug it if it's a real bug and if possible provide a patch in > dspam's bug tracker. However, I didn't see any reaction to my bug > report there and there was no new commit in dspam since august > 2012. There is also not much traffic on this mailing list. You are right in stating that there is no active development on dspam. This is due to a small team of volunteers that don't have the manpower or even knowledge (I don't know C and dislike perl) to actively maintain the source. Attempts in the past on getting more help on board hasn't really resulted in anything, but the current sleeping state of the project won't help in solving that situation imho. I took a quick look at the bug reports you submitted, and I'd be happy to apply the patches to the source tree, but I'm unable to actually test them. The hash/css backend is known to be problematic when used in a larger scale environment, which is why almost nobody uses it in production. (Considering that POV, it would be unwise to ship the hash as the default backend like Debian does, but that's a different discussion.) > > Therefore I am wondering what is the future of dspam. You might > already know it, a stable release of Debian is supported for about > 3 years. I commited myself to support dspam (in version 3.10.1) in > the current Debian release starting from october 2013 but given the > current momentum, I am wondering if I will do the same for the next > release. There is still a nice userbase, as you can see in the dspam-user mailing list, including questions about new installs now and then. For most people, dspam is a stable tool that works as advertised, albeit with some 'stay away from this part!' and 'don't turn this knob unless...' cautions on the box. The question is whether Debian (and derative) users will be bothered by dspam dropping out of the repositories. That would be a question for dspam-user ml. Personal opinion: I use the packages on ubuntu, and am glad they're available. > > So I'm waiting to hear from you about the plan regarding dspam. Is > there still some people working on it? Will there be a new release > soon? What about the patches reported with a patch? For now, there is no new release planned anytime soon. Maybe that should change but (I guess) everyone's priorities are somewhere else. I'll try to look into your patches and commit them. I do like that fact that you care whether we're still alive, and I'd say: yes, but only just :/ Kind regards, Tom -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSllXvAAoJEJPfMZ19VO/1XakP/19brQErLSW715TeNrxBWu27 YAR6h3Bq+dETk8S8NZqobAmF1Q8N1I9BTdGHcEA5zBQnIajnUl+tsgkgsFRlUOpR jU1HVoWTUtIQ1xnpoL7Q45OvJV7lMdIwjb3MGYDcUwyvLSxESbLz04JTsFTvxqHd tqxwjuxGDiRIvJ7gbh21AYBM4UwU+tZoiUCEypUftCenemIGUzgjb8Q6l8cWCmAj 7fLoN2dgjCFQE5Huagj6Lwh8L6DU4rYdNIsbdXSAwM6TXclBb2kGzUQopEqnEUwA z7Jn9yS3nJyl+f/ezVMURci/voNEe2RWtmn6xT+qi2rE7FcGnWozgH96JCP729Rw zonSzBTq6mPG8zulxXm4Oj9qa90gA47FunyGPbusqhbVv8Ga8JTGOKBW6Jo79FVH MpVbq9EejYghSd0AgJKAmSH8DQO9foDBUBQI/exJZkK6LzcIrl0EdPJ1CUTwgsXF hhTBOX4ev4eElET+Wgawrim5MnjtImGlboQjFfSq/YOEQM3+fSYjdF3Ph+V+R8LV ZFYLxLqVlZ+1tfz/1XmsYEveufqa8hoIL1Yj61b/0uON5ZdcPN9qSIUeY0wZDOYU fhc4MeHIw9J3A2B2mXSD6Yyp5MlT4ibfFc2+By5bMGtTA28vjoB9EwrJcht9fDKt q+CDBtMyj9qx7GJvHa4l =oqjy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Thomas Preud'h. <ro...@ce...> - 2013-11-29 11:41:18
|
Le mercredi 27 novembre 2013, 21:28:31 Tom Hendrikx a écrit : > > Hi Thomas, Hi Tom, thanks for your quick answer. > > You are right in stating that there is no active development on dspam. > This is due to a small team of volunteers that don't have the manpower > or even knowledge (I don't know C and dislike perl) to actively > maintain the source. > Attempts in the past on getting more help on board hasn't really > resulted in anything, but the current sleeping state of the project > won't help in solving that situation imho. I understand. I was not doing any judgement. > > I took a quick look at the bug reports you submitted, and I'd be happy > to apply the patches to the source tree, but I'm unable to actually > test them. The hash/css backend is known to be problematic when used > in a larger scale environment, which is why almost nobody uses it in > production. (Considering that POV, it would be unwise to ship the hash > as the default backend like Debian does, but that's a different > discussion.) Well, that could be changed. Out of the other backends, which one is the most tested? As to the patches, I see several problems with the current situation. 1) The first problem is that patches only in the Debian package only benefits to Debian user while I think all of them are *not* Debian specific. 2) I did my best when writing these patches but although I know very wellh C, I am not familiar with dspam code so I might have made some mistakes. Thus, what I seek in merging them in dspam proper is, in addition to the first reason given above, mostly about getting review of the code. I'm willing to improve the patch myself if necessary but I need guidance. On the other hand, I can take the time to walk any reviewer through my patches, explaining the motivation if necessary (it's normally already explained in the associated bug report) and the way the patch works. > > There is still a nice userbase, as you can see in the dspam-user > mailing list, including questions about new installs now and then. For > most people, dspam is a stable tool that works as advertised, albeit > with some 'stay away from this part!' and 'don't turn this knob > unless...' cautions on the box. Even stable, a software always needs now and then a small fix for compiling on a new platform or work with a new version of gcc. And if you look at the patches in Debian [0], at least one of them is a fix for a possible loss of email with dspam (no matter what driver is used). So although I don't expect new feature, I think it is important to have at least someone respond to bug report and react to the most important of them. [0] http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/dspam/3.10.2+dfsg-12 > > The question is whether Debian (and derative) users will be bothered > by dspam dropping out of the repositories. That would be a question > for dspam-user ml. Personal opinion: I use the packages on ubuntu, and > am glad they're available. Not really. I don't doubt some people use dspam and I maintain some packages with fewer users. But I don't want to give a false impression of security. Debian users can assume that a package in a stable release of Debian will be fixed if any security issue is discovered. If the issue is complicated enough, I would need some help from someone more familiar with the code base to answer some questions. Again, I am not asking for some new feature but I want someone responsible in case I bring a problem up. Else, it means I need to fix any possible bug myself and I certainly cannot do it for all bugs. > > For now, there is no new release planned anytime soon. Maybe that > should change but (I guess) everyone's priorities are somewhere else. > I'll try to look into your patches and commit them. It's alright. Even in Debian very few people expressed the need for new features and when that happened, a patch was proposed in the bug tracker (AFAIK). But it would be nice if patches for bugfix would be considered and applied if correct. If not, a comment to help the author of the patch improve it would already be a significant improvement over the current situation. > > I do like that fact that you care whether we're still alive, and I'd > say: yes, but only just :/ Good. So let me state it one last time. I am willing to keep dspam in Debian in the next release if there is someone I can talk to in case of a problem I cannot solve myself. Someone that knows the code better than I do and that could (i) review patches I provide and (ii) help me fix a bug if it is too complex for me. Note that this shouldn't require much time as so far I managed to provide a patch for all bugs submitted and only an occasional review is necessary. So far I have a bug report every 2 months I would say (I didn't check). > > Kind regards, > Tom Best regards, Thomas |