libspf-1.0.0-RC4.ebuild should be implemented Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. libspf (http://libspf.org) is an ANSI C reference implementation of the Sender Policy Framework (http://spf.pobox.com). It configures, builds, and installs under x86, x86_64/amd64, SPARC, and PCC.
*** Bug 59102 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Is there some other ebuild, depending on this, waiting in portage? I do not think it's necessary to just add a library to portage, without anything needing it.
No there is nothing to my knowledge in portage thats depending on this. However both Qmail, Sendmail and Courier can all make use of this library. I find your response puzzling as regards this libraries (or any libraries) place in Portage. Is not this the purpose of portage, to provide users with software that will painlessly be installed on their system?
Why is nothing being done about this? Meanwhile a YOUNGER and LESS MATURE library has been in portage for well over a month now! * mail-filter/libspf2 Latest version available: 1.0.4 Latest version installed: 1.0.4 Size of downloaded files: 417 kB Homepage: http://www.libspf2.org/ Description: libspf2 implements the Sender Policy Framework, a part of the SPF/SRS protocol pair. License: GPL-2 libspf2 has a known memory leak and the latest build doesn't even compile, and furthermore as I stated its less mature than libSPF. The naming convention used by that library is intentionally such that it leads one to believe it supercedes or replaces my libary and this is most certainly NOT the case. Please can someone in net-mail give this bug some attention, its not like it takes much effort to get something into portage!
I wasn't aware that REMIND would close this bug as "resolved" as it isn't resolved and should be implemented asap.
pfeifer: please add yourself to the net-mail herd and be responsive for all this SPF stuff that you've brought upon us. jcouzens: attach all required, and updated ebuilds for pfeifer to review and commit, also please do not close bugs like this in future. A number of us have turned off bug close notification due to the quantity of mail it causes. The fact that status was still at new and not assigned, means that it probably hadn't even been examined yet. You'll need a lot more patience, our best and worst records for ebuild-add bugs are 6 minutes and 19 months respectively.
Now that I know this bug exists, I will look to add the requested ebuild. Jay
Looking forward to see this too since we are planning to use it for infra servers.
It would also be nice having a 'spf' USE flag for implementing libspf patches in all the different MTA's.
OK, libspf-1.0.0_p3 is in portage.
