Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:20:13 -0700 From: Pat Lashley <patl+sa@volant.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@mat.cc>, "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <danm@prime.gushi.org>, users@spamassassin.apache.org, spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org Cc: perl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued) Message-ID: <FAEF3DFFE0FD6ECBA7B62649@vanvoght.phoenix.volant.org> In-Reply-To: <861CEAA9963517079275A510@[192.168.1.5]> References: <20040924043002.Q78840@prime.gushi.org> <2CE7048C26D5B2A38706C484@vanvoght.phoenix.volant.org> <861CEAA9963517079275A510@[192.168.1.5]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--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? -Pat
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FAEF3DFFE0FD6ECBA7B62649>