Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 02:32:02 +0100 From: jm@dogma.slashnull.org (Justin Mason) To: "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <danm@prime.gushi.org> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued) Message-ID: <20040926013202.GA28656@dogma.slashnull.org> In-Reply-To: <20040925131746.R5738@prime.gushi.org> References: <20040924043002.Q78840@prime.gushi.org> <2CE7048C26D5B2A38706C484@vanvoght.phoenix.volant.org> <861CEAA9963517079275A510@[192.168.1.5]> <FAEF3DFFE0FD6ECBA7B62649@vanvoght.phoenix.volant.org> <2935218715CC0DA42A98E6C2@cc-147.int.t-online.fr> <20040925131746.R5738@prime.gushi.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Sep 25, 2004 at 01:21:19PM -0400, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote: > On Sat, 25 Sep 2004, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > Does this mean we're going to get/need a port in for the IP::Country::Fast > module? I can create it if you like. > > (I haven't been able to find a useful documentation on creating a port 00 > is there one?) > > A menu-based config (like the one for the mod_php) port would probably be > useful as well, to enable things like SSL, and database support. > guys -- bear in mind that IP:C:F is an optional module, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. --j. > > >+-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley ?crivait : > >| --On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold > >| <mat@mat.cc> wrote: > >| > >|> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit : > >|>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update > >|>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability > >|>| in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by > >|>| default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still > >|>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.) > >|> > >|> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will > >be > >|> the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to > >have > >|> SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried). > >|> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with > >the > >|> patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for > >them > >|> to update/patch/whatever. > >| > >| That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not > >| a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated? > >| Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated > >| and in the field long enough for some serious testing? > > > >I don't want to have a SA3 port, I'm more in favor of a SA264 port designed > >for perl 5.005_03 as the databases/p5-DBI-137 port. This is still under > >discussion. > > > >-- > >Mathieu Arnold > > > > -- > > "We need another cat. This one's retarded." > > -Cali, March 8, 2003 (3:43 AM) > > --------Dan Mahoney-------- > Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek > Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC > ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM > Site: http://www.gushi.org > ---------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040926013202.GA28656>