libmail-spf-query-perl: spfquery alternatives priorities
julian at mehnle.net
Tue Mar 27 15:23:26 UTC 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
> Given the overall quality of the libspf2 command-line utilities - lack
> of manpages (which I'm working to rectify, though), no support for HELO
> checks, override and fallback unimplemented, etc - I wouldn't mind if
> spfquery.mail-spf-query-perl were given a higher priority than
> spfquery.libspf2, even if the latter should execute faster. I think the
> same goes for spfd.
> What discussions did you have with the previous libspf2 maintainer? I
> can see how there can be confusion if at some point in the futures the
> relative priorities were to revert back.
I am maintaining libmail-spf-query-perl (AKA Mail::SPF::Query) within the
Debian Perl Group. Mail::SPF::Query (M:S:Q) has been superceded by
Mail::SPF (M:S, written by me), but there's still a lot of Perl
software that uses M:S:Q, so we cannot drop it (yet). I haven't managed
to bring M:S (source: mail-spf-perl; binaries: libmail-spf-perl,
spf-tools-perl) into the Debian Perl Group yet (I'm currently busy with
exam preparations), but I'm planning to do so soon. Then, the M:S
man-pages should have the highest alternatives priority over both M:S:Q
and libspf2, as M:S has the most advanced spfquery and spfd tools and the
most complete man-pages for them.
I have added alternatives support to all of M:S, M:S:Q, and libspf2 (I was
the one who submitted the patch). This is the order I originally
But I can very well see changing libspf2's alternatives priority to 25
until it ships better man-pages. It's up to you.
> Another thing: will you add a Conflicts: spfquery (<= 1.2.5-4) on the
> next upload?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the pkg-perl-maintainers