Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:21:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dan Mahoney, System Admin" <danm@prime.gushi.org> To: Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued) Message-ID: <20040925131746.R5738@prime.gushi.org> In-Reply-To: <2935218715CC0DA42A98E6C2@cc-147.int.t-online.fr> References: <20040924043002.Q78840@prime.gushi.org> <2CE7048C26D5B2A38706C484@vanvoght.phoenix.volant.org> <FAEF3DFFE0FD6ECBA7B62649@vanvoght.phoenix.volant.org> <2935218715CC0DA42A98E6C2@cc-147.int.t-online.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-300611556-1096132879=:5738 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE 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= =20 module? I can create it if you like. (I haven't been able to find a useful documentation on creating a port 00= =20 is there one?) A menu-based config (like the one for the mod_php) port would probably be= =20 useful as well, to enable things like SSL, and database support. -Dan > +-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley =E9crivait : > | --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 h= ave > |> 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 design= ed > 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 --------------------------- --0-300611556-1096132879=:5738--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040925131746.R5738>