On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:10:02AM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 06:20:33AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > > A much larger amount of spam than usual got through my filters, I > > think because most of my spam checks couldn't run due to this error. > > After some confusion, I figured out that I had upgraded perl under a > > running spamd, from 5.8 to 5.10. Apparently spamd needs to dynamically > > load perl modules, and removing the 5.8 versions breaks it. It would be > > great if spamd could be restarted when perl is upgraded. I suspect this > > is not exactly trivial, which is why I'm filing at wishlist severity. > > There are a few different things that need to happen to spamassassin > when perl is upgraded. Compiled rules need to be blown away and > rebuilt, for example. Unfortunately, perl is in a much better position > than we are to know when it's upgraded. Perhaps perl should take care > of triggering a spamassassin restart, similar to what glibc does...
This is also #230308 against perl. Although there's the glibc precedent, the perl package doesn't really want to know which packages need a restart. I wonder if the new dpkg triggers would be a good solution for this. -- Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
