[SURBL-Discuss] packaging SpamCopURI
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
> >>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:
> >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
More information about the Discuss