On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 12:35:46PM -0800, Justin Mason wrote: > OK, we're rethinking this; it no longer seems necessary for it > to be a requirement, and you have good points there. > > What about this? > > - basic "spamassassin" package (rpm/deb) contains no active-set rules > > - there's another package which contains the active-set rules, in the > location where "sa-update" can later overwrite them > > - both packages co-depend on each other. > > The second package can be updated either via distro packaging methods -- > apt-get/yum, or can be overwritten using "sa-update".
Yeah, sorry I didn't read the original message carefully enough. I think I'm pretty much in agreement with Warren though as far as requirements go. The only problem I see with the above, is that no script should be overwriting rules that are distributed in a package. So if I distribute a spamassassin-rules .deb, which would stick files in /usr/share/spamassassin, no script should go in and overwrite those rules. sa-update should be writing to somewhere in /var/lib/spamassassin (or /var/cache/spamassassin ?) and spamassassin/spamd should be reading from that location if it exists. So, looks like spamassassin/spamd probably needs to be modified to read from /var/lib/spamassassin if we want sa-update to work this way. -- Duncan Findlay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
