"Malte S. Stretz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There was a discussion going on on this mailinglist on which you could
> have asked if that what you committed would work. Which also included
> a suggestion by me to split out the reporting stuff which would need a
> spamassassin script (instead of a symlink) anyway.
I think you might be overreacting a bit. Waiting for a long email
discussion to finish while the installation was broken would not have
made much sense, especially since I was willing to burn my evening
trying to figure out the Makefiles.
Anyway, if we split out reporting, then things will need to be
redesigned much more. The problem with the current design around
"spamassassin" is that various behaviors are implemented as flags rather
than svn-style subcommands or razor-style commands.
sa-filter [options] [ < mailmessage | path ... ]
sa-filter -d [ < mailmessage | path ... ]
sa-filter -r [-w addr] [ < mailmessage | path ... ]
sa-filter -k [-w addr] [ < mailmessage | path ... ]
sa-filter -W|-R [ < mailmessage | path ... ]
This suggests several different possible breakdowns--I'm ignoring
whether or not it's "sa-foo" or "sa foo" and please just consider these
placeholder names.
Obviously, one command, the main command, is "filter".
The second command is "remove". This could be its own command or it
could possibly be added to "filter", but I think separate is probably
better since it's very simple.
"report" and "revoke" are the next commands, maybe together in one
command, although, again, I prefer separate commands here.
"whitelist" and "blacklist" -- these *really* belong in "sa-learn" since
it's AWL/History, but "sa-learn" has been crufted up with lots of
Bayes-specific stuff, so merging it with "sa-learn" will be non-trivial.
Basically, the command line tools are a confusing mess of disorganized
crap. Compare "svn", "cvs", even "apt-get".
> Right, as long as we don't want to test the spamassassin script/symlink.
Maybe.
> I'm not opposed to your approach, it didn't come to my mind, but if
> you had asked I could have told you a few cases where it doesn't work
> as you implemented it.
Could you could more specific?
> No, it doesn't work for vendor installs, just for perl and site. That's
> what all the I_FOO and B_FOO hackery in the Makefile.PL is for.
Completely underdocumented hackery.
> But it won't work on systems where the single quote is not supported.
Single quotes appear all over the Makefile.PL and the generated
Makefile. If this is an issue, it's also not documented and you did not
mention it recently.
> On the quoting of the dollar sign is also different on the platforms.
> That's the reason why I moved the logic into a separate script. (I
> think EU::MM has a function oneliner() for the correct quoting but I
> faintly remember some bug in there.)
If you're trying to paralyze me into inaction, it might be working, but
it might be better to document things more and suggest alternate
solutions instead of just raising issues with my implementation.
Sorry, I'm a bit frustrated here...
Daniel
--
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/
