Bug#383708: exim4-config: SPF-related documentation issues

[Ross Boylan]

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 07:43 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 03:34:02PM -0700, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 11:26:30PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 09:38:45PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > I'm afraid I don't know apt-listchanges.
> > > 
> > > Buggy as a june meadow and suboptimally maintained. Things can change
> > > soon, as apt-listchanges has just gotten a new maintainer.
> > > 
> > > >   But if you can confirm that changing the formatting to start with "
> > > >   *" solves the problem, I'll just do that.
> > > 
> > > Don't! NEWS.Debian is just as it is supposed to be.
> > 
> > My impression, which I think I got from an earlier apt-listchanges
> > maintainer, is that NEWS.Debian is supposed to have individual entries
> > in the same format as changelog.Debian.  Whether that implies "*" I'm
> > not sure; whether this is just a little secret or part of policy I'm
> > not sure.
> 
> I took the opportunity to re-read developer's reference 6.3.4 and
> adapted NEWS.Debian to conform to it. There was indeed an error since
> I didn't remember all of 6.3.4.
I notice it explicitly says not to use "*".
> 
> > Also, as a user I expect that all binaries with the same source will
> > have the same NEWS.Debian, so I won't necessarily check the separate
> > NEWS.Debian.  If others are like me, it means the NEWS may escape
> > human as well as automatic tools.
> 
> As a user, I wouldn't care about source packages.

It's probably desirable that users shouldn't have to think about source
packages, particularly since the partition of binary packages among
source packages sometimes changes.  At the moment, I find I sometimes
need to be aware of it (mostly for problems with apt-listchanges and
filing bug reports).
> 
> I am vetoing the same NEWS.Debian in all exim4 binary packages. Please
> take this to the tech ctte, we need a clarification of the developer's
> reference.

I don't feel I have much standing to do so, as I'm not a Debian
Developer or a package maintainer affected by this issue.  I'm not even
sure I understand apt-listchange's current behavior.

After reviewing the docs for my binary installation of apt-listchanges,
I'd say the most natural reading of them is that operations are on a
per-binary package basis.  There's no mention of source packages.  On
the other hand, printing out the same changelog for each binary from a
shared source would certainly be tedious.

> 
> > In the longer-run, apt-listchanges, package maintainers, and policy
> > should all agree on what the deal is (format of NEWS.Debian and
> > relation between packages from the same source).
> 
> Policy is not the only thing to honor; especially since the policy
> editors tend to axe change proposals.
I don't follow that last remark.  I thought that, in the case of
ambiguity, policy was determinative.  Except, of course, when it doesn't
say anything.  The status of section 6.3, however, appears to be
non-normative (as that phrase is used in RFC's) since it is "best
practices".  To me, that implies the contents are useful advice, but not
mandatory.
> 
> Greetings
> Marc
> 
-- 
Ross Boylan                                      wk:  (415) 514-8146
185 Berry St #5700                               ross at biostat.ucsf.edu
Dept of Epidemiology and Biostatistics           fax: (415) 514-8150
University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, CA 94107-1739                     hm:  (415) 550-1062