Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>