From owner-freebsd-perl@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 25 09:20:22 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-perl@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4301A16A4CE for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:20:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from orwell.phoenix.volant.org (64-144-229-193.client.dsl.net [64.144.229.193]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C1443D1D for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:20:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from patl+sa@volant.org) Received: from vanvoght.phoenix.volant.org ([192.168.0.22]) by orwell.phoenix.volant.org with esmtp (Exim 4.42 (FreeBSD)) id 1CB8j0-0000kS-Bb; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:20:14 -0700 Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:20:13 -0700 From: Pat Lashley To: Mathieu Arnold , "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" , users@spamassassin.apache.org, spamassassin-users@incubator.apache.org Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <861CEAA9963517079275A510@[192.168.1.5]> References: <20040924043002.Q78840@prime.gushi.org> <2CE7048C26D5B2A38706C484@vanvoght.phoenix.volant.org> <861CEAA9963517079275A510@[192.168.1.5]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.6 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Warning: Could not verify sender address cc: perl@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued) X-BeenThere: freebsd-perl@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: maintainer of a number of perl-related ports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 09:20:22 -0000 --On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold 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