Hi,
I've packaged SpamCopURI, but these files clash with SpamAssassin files.
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm
I assume that these normally replace the originally install SpamAssassin files. Is this correct, and if so should I look at adding SpamCopURI to my SpamAssassin package.
Regards,
Rob
On Thursday, April 22, 2004, 3:44:18 AM, Robert Brooks wrote:
I've packaged SpamCopURI, but these files clash with SpamAssassin files.
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm
I assume that these normally replace the originally install SpamAssassin files.
Hi Rob, That's correct.
Is this correct, and if so should I look at adding SpamCopURI to my SpamAssassin package.
Not sure the answer. Will defer to more SA literate folks here....
Jeff C.
Robert Brooks wrote:
Hi,
I've packaged SpamCopURI, but these files clash with SpamAssassin files.
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm
I assume that these normally replace the originally install SpamAssassin files. Is this correct, and if so should I look at adding SpamCopURI to my SpamAssassin package.
Why not make a 'spamassassin-spamcop' package? Seems like the only really effective way of distributing this.
David
David Coulson wrote:
Why not make a 'spamassassin-spamcop' package? Seems like the only really effective way of distributing this.
this is what I was thinking, however I quite like Dag Wieers package and much prefer to work with the repositories I use.
Regards,
Rob
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:44:18AM +0100, Robert Brooks wrote:
Hi,
I've packaged SpamCopURI, but these files clash with SpamAssassin files.
/usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.6.1/Mail/SpamAssassin/PerMsgStatus.pm
I assume that these normally replace the originally install SpamAssassin files. Is this correct, and if so should I look at adding SpamCopURI to my SpamAssassin package.
SpamCopURI is intended to overwrite these files. You can package these with SpamAssassin, but just be sure that its only version 2.63.
--eric
Regards,
Rob
-- Robert Brooks, Network Manager, Hyperlink Interactive Ltd robb@hyperlink-interactive.co.uk http://hyperlink-interactive.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)20 7240 8121 Fax: +44 (0)20 7240 8098
- Help Microsoft stamp out piracy. Give Linux to a friend today! -
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Eric Kolve wrote:
I assume that these normally replace the originally install SpamAssassin files. Is this correct, and if so should I look at adding SpamCopURI to my SpamAssassin package.
SpamCopURI is intended to overwrite these files. You can package these with SpamAssassin, but just be sure that its only version 2.63.
is there a reason why SpamCopURI isn't a patch to SpamAssassin?
Regards,
Rob
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 05:09:34PM +0100, Robert Brooks wrote:
Eric Kolve wrote:
I assume that these normally replace the originally install SpamAssassin files. Is this correct, and if so should I look at adding SpamCopURI to my SpamAssassin package.
SpamCopURI is intended to overwrite these files. You can package these with SpamAssassin, but just be sure that its only version 2.63.
is there a reason why SpamCopURI isn't a patch to SpamAssassin?
I could have made a patch instead of just overwriting, but I thought it would be easier to install if I didn't patch since users would then have to locate the .pm files and directly patch them.
--eric
Regards,
Rob
-- Robert Brooks, Network Manager, Hyperlink Interactive Ltd robb@hyperlink-interactive.co.uk http://hyperlink-interactive.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)20 7240 8121 Fax: +44 (0)20 7240 8098
- Help Microsoft stamp out piracy. Give Linux to a friend today! -
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Eric Kolve wrote:
I could have made a patch instead of just overwriting, but I thought it would be easier to install if I didn't patch since users would then have to locate the .pm files and directly patch them.
yes, hardly ideal, perhaps a patch in the tarball as an alternative method. Is there any chance the common code will get accepted into 2.64?
Regards,
Rob
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 09:40:01AM +0100, Robert Brooks wrote:
Eric Kolve wrote:
I could have made a patch instead of just overwriting, but I thought it would be easier to install if I didn't patch since users would then have to locate the .pm files and directly patch them.
yes, hardly ideal, perhaps a patch in the tarball as an alternative method. Is there any chance the common code will get accepted into 2.64?
I am working on a more intelligent Makefile.PL that attempts to determine where you have installed SA and install over it.
Its not likely this will get incorporated into 2.64.
--eric
Regards,
Rob
-- Robert Brooks, Network Manager, Hyperlink Interactive Ltd robb@hyperlink-interactive.co.uk http://hyperlink-interactive.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)20 7240 8121 Fax: +44 (0)20 7240 8098
- Help Microsoft stamp out piracy. Give Linux to a friend today! -
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Eric Kolve wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 09:40:01AM +0100, Robert Brooks wrote:
Eric Kolve wrote:
I could have made a patch instead of just overwriting, but I thought it would be easier to install if I didn't patch since users would then have to locate the .pm files and directly patch them.
yes, hardly ideal, perhaps a patch in the tarball as an alternative method. Is there any chance the common code will get accepted into 2.64?
I am working on a more intelligent Makefile.PL that attempts to determine where you have installed SA and install over it.
hmmm, I guess I can do it myself, but what I'd like to do is add a patch for the common files to the SpamAssassin rpm and then make a separate rpm with SpamCopURI.pm etc in.
Its not likely this will get incorporated into 2.64.
yes, I see SA3.0 is not too far away.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 03:05:02PM +0100, Robert Brooks wrote:
Eric Kolve wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 09:40:01AM +0100, Robert Brooks wrote:
Eric Kolve wrote:
I could have made a patch instead of just overwriting, but I thought it would be easier to install if I didn't patch since users would then have to locate the .pm files and directly patch them.
yes, hardly ideal, perhaps a patch in the tarball as an alternative method. Is there any chance the common code will get accepted into 2.64?
I am working on a more intelligent Makefile.PL that attempts to determine where you have installed SA and install over it.
hmmm, I guess I can do it myself, but what I'd like to do is add a patch for the common files to the SpamAssassin rpm and then make a separate rpm with SpamCopURI.pm etc in.
Okay, I see what you are saying. Would you then end up with something like this:
perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-patched-2.63-1.i386.rpm perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.14-1.i386.rpm
--eric
Its not likely this will get incorporated into 2.64.
yes, I see SA3.0 is not too far away.
-- Robert Brooks, Network Manager, Hyperlink Interactive Ltd robb@hyperlink-interactive.co.uk http://hyperlink-interactive.co.uk/ Tel: +44 (0)20 7240 8121 Fax: +44 (0)20 7240 8098
- Help Microsoft stamp out piracy. Give Linux to a friend today! -
Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.surbl.org http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Eric Kolve wrote:
Okay, I see what you are saying. Would you then end up with something like this:
perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-patched-2.63-1.i386.rpm perl-Mail-SpamAssassin-SpamCopURI-0.14-1.i386.rpm
pretty much, I'd likely do it via a virtual package such that:
perl-Mail-SpamAssassin provides "SpamCopURI-patched"
and perl-spamassassin-SpamCopURI requires a SpamCopURI-patched version of perl-Mail-SpamAssassin.
Then it's just a case of beating up the various packagers to include the patch etc.
Regards,
Rob
-
David Coulson -
Eric Kolve -
Jeff Chan -
Robert Brooks