Hi, Problem is getmail documentation pretends it impliments mboxrd while it actually use mboxo from python. Mboxo may not be your favorite (nor mine), but python decided to use mboxo with reason. python manual goes:
| 18.4.1.2. mbox | ... | Several variations of the mbox format exist to address perceived | shortcomings in the original. In the interest of compatibility, mbox | implements the original format, which is sometimes referred to as mboxo. | This means that the Content-Length header, if present, is ignored and | that any occurrences of “From ” at the beginning of a line in a message | body are transformed to “>From ” when storing the message, although | occurrences of “>From ” are not transformed to “From ” when reading the | message. On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 03:29:26AM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > severity 633799 critical > forwarded 633799 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.getmail.user/4576 > stop > Osamu, I can't believe my eyes why you severity-normal-ised such an > issue, if you'd not... I (and others) would have had the chance to see > it e.g. via apt-listbugs. Thank you for your attention and success in making upstream accept patch to realize mboxrd format instead of mboxo. (Have you read entire bug report including patches.) But if you read history of bug report including patches, you could have written a bit kinder tone message. I feel a bit sad to see this message. Maybe I should have applied my documentation patch in BTS. But since upstream did not take this patch, I left it here. > Before I saw this bug at Debian, I reported the same issue again > upstream: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.getmail.user/4576 > which does of course not mean that now they're smarter. > > > But from Debian side this clearly needs to be handled better. What I > suggested at the Debian bug on the analogous Evolution issue is: > big fat warnings in: > - the NEWS file No. This is not news. So not an appropriate place. Right place should be more like README.Debian or BUGS. > - the package descripting This is not right place. > - if possibly in a priority-high dialogue via debconf This is not right place per policy. > If upstream is stupid and doesn't want to fix this, then we really Please do not call upstream stupid ... especially in public like this. I think you are bright but this is not very polite. > really must warn our users on that issue. > And even if upstream would fix it, we still would need to warn our users > at least in the NEWS file / release notes... that all their mail from > previous years is likely corrupted. mboxo has been always so and have been widely used. mboxrd is technically superior. anyone who stores file in mbox should know there are risks as you describe. > For the above reasons, reseting the severity again to critical, as it > causes serious (because irrecoverable) data loss. I think important point is not above reason only but the fact upstream applied patch to make this program to function as mboxrd. I think you are a bit exxagurating severity of trivial part of data change. > If you don't want to apply the solving patch in only debian (if upstream > rejects it) I'd be fined with closing this bug (as wontfix) if the above > warnings (NEWS file, package description, debconf dialogue) are > installed. > > Again, I need to point out that I'm really disturbed and sad that such a > bug got hidden away in Debian :( Yah, I had homework to update README.Debian. Let's ask release manager how this should be handled now. If they are OK to accept patch only to fix this bug (inconsistence between documentation and code.) causing mbox file to be not the most technically safe one. Regards, Osamu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
