[SURBL-Discuss] packaging SpamCopURI

Eric Kolve ekolve at comcast.net
Fri Apr 23 11:25:45 CEST 2004


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 at 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 at lists.surbl.org
> http://lists.surbl.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


More information about the Discuss mailing list