Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 08:59:03 +0200 From: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc> To: Pat Lashley <patl@volant.org>, "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <danm@prime.gushi.org>, users@spamassassin.apache.org Cc: perl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued) Message-ID: <861CEAA9963517079275A510@[192.168.1.5]> In-Reply-To: <2CE7048C26D5B2A38706C484@vanvoght.phoenix.volant.org> References: <20040924043002.Q78840@prime.gushi.org> <2CE7048C26D5B2A38706C484@vanvoght.phoenix.volant.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+-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. -- Mathieu Arnold
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?861CEAA9963517079275A510>