http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5147





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-10-27 08:45 -------
(In reply to comment #7)

> Daryl's right -- that won't do the trick.  Here's another, worse, problem 
> case:
> consider what'll happen the day a release is made; the update will contain 
> data
> predating the release.

> In other words it's *impossible* to run sa-update on that day without
> installing an invalid ruleset ;)

I had dev versions in mind since (i) at least 24 hours should pass between the
time a release tarball is made and the time it's released if we're actually
waiting long enough for problems to be spotted with the release; and (ii)
updates for the stable branch are down manually, so even though it's not in the
release procedure (it should be), whoever cuts a release needs to make sure that
current update isn't going to screw up the new release and make a new update if
necessary.  So really, (ii) applies now and (i) applies if we get things
automated later.


> Comparing modification dates seems to be the best option, in my opinion.  It's
> a trivial tweak to the algorithm: change  sa-update to touch(1) the update dir
> each time it downloads an update; then when Mail::SpamAssassin is looking for
> rule-updates, if the modtime of /var/lib/spamassassin is older than
> /usr/share/spamassassin, ignore the update and use the latter instead.

Doesn't work either.  Starting with nothing...

 - install dev version with rules in /usr/share/spamassassin
 - run sa-update and get older version of rules than in /usr/share/spamassassin
   - sa-update touches /var/lib/spamassassin with date newer than /usr/share/...
 - we end up using the older rules in /var/lib/spamassassin because they have
   the latest mtime



------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

Reply via email to