Yes, I probably shouldn't have done an svn update in the root. Luckily I don't think 3.4.5 is much different than 3.4.
On Fri, Jan 1, 2021, 21:51 John Hardin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jan 2021, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > > Well I think it's tied to 3.4.4s release so I don't think I should have > > done an update in the root but rules and rulesrc likely should get > updated. > > > > I'd like to focus on 3.4.5 and 4.0 if you can dig into this issue. > > I feel safe modifying the script to check out rules/ as well, but I'd want > to dig deeper before changing it to a root update. > > > On Fri, Jan 1, 2021, 11:48 John Hardin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 1 Jan 2021, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > >> > >>> So I logged onto sa-vm and sudo'd to automc, when to svn/trunk and did > >> svn > >>> update in rules. See below. [1] Note the cron job shows: Checked > >>> out revision 1885000. From looking at the script, it does a checkout > >>> of rulesrc not rules so this might be "expected" behavior. NOT sure > >>> if things were stale or if we use one revision for a week or > >>> something. > >> > >> It should update rules/ every time as well, as those files are *not* > >> reliably static enough to be left alone for any length of time. They > could > >> potentially change at any time, even though they generally haven't. > >> > >> Is there any reason we should not be updating the entire trunk/ tree? > Why > >> are we picking and choosing? > >> > >> I think the run_nightly script in SVN should be updated to retrieve > rules/ > >> as well, or just all of trunk/ to avoid problems (e.g. with references > to > >> modified plugins). > >> > >> > >>> The URG_BIZ and the ADVANCED fee issues were something I saw in the > crons > >>> but they came in out of order and with no idea of the real dates so I > was > >>> waiting for the latest email with the output to check things. > >>> > >>> Out of interest, did you make changes to those rules and possibly in 2 > >>> commits? > >> > >> Nope. They were related so I kept them together in the same commit: > >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1884468 > >> > >> > >>> Trying to figure out if something went wrong or not but my > >>> eyesight is not good enough today to follow all the various cron jobs > for > >>> rules. > >> > >> The __URG_BIZ change was the 15th, so a couple of weekly runs have > >> occurred since then and didn't automagically repair it. > >> > >> I think that it's a design error in the script vs. something going wrong > >> in correct code. > >> > >> > >>> Anyway, I ran the same command after the svn > >>> up, ~/svn/trunk/build/mkupdates/run_nightly | /usr/bin/tee /var/www/ > >>> automc.spamassassin.org/mkupdates/mkupdates.txt and it passes now and > it > >>> published a ruleset that passes lint for me with 4.0. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> KAM > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > >>> U 20_vbounce.cf > >>> U 60_whitelist.cf > >>> U 50_scores.cf > >>> U 60_whitelist_auth.cf > >>> U 20_phrases.cf > >>> Updated to revision 1885008. > >>> > >>> and in the root > >>> > >>> U CREDITS > >>> U rulesrc/sandbox/gbechis/20_freemail.cf > >>> U rulesrc/sandbox/gbechis/20_misc.cf > >>> U lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/VBounce.pm > >>> U lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/DKIM.pm > >>> U lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/FreeMail.pm > >>> U lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/SPF.pm > >>> U lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/WLBLEval.pm > >>> U lib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf.pm > >>> A t/spf_welcome_block.t > >>> A t/blocklist_autolearn.t > >>> U t/data/01_test_rules.cf > >>> A t/freemail_welcome_block.t > >>> U MANIFEST > >>> U NOTICE > >>> Updated to revision 1885008. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> [2] > >>> automc@sa-vm:~/svn/trunk$ ~/svn/trunk/build/mkupdates/run_nightly | > >>> /usr/bin/tee /var/www/automc.spamassassin.org/mkupdates/mkupdates.txt > >> > >> {much snippage} > >> > >>> -- > >>> Kevin A. McGrail > >>> Member, Apache Software Foundation > >>> Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project > >>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 10:35 AM John Hardin <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2021, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Does anyone have some time to look into this error? It's why I > >>>>> wanted to fix the server sending logs because I didn't think rules > >>>>> were being published. > >>>>> > >>>>> t/basic_lint.t .................. ok > >>>>> t/basic_lint_without_sandbox.t .. ok > >>>>> __ADVANCE_FEE_2_NEW depends on __URG_BIZ which is nonexistent > >>>> > >>>> __URG_BIZ is defined in trunk/rules/20_phrases.cf and it's still > >>>> there... > > -- > John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ > [email protected] pgpk -a [email protected] > key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ...the good of having the government prohibited from doing harm > far outweighs the harm of having it obstructed from doing good. > -- Mike@mike-istan > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 216 days since the first private commercial manned orbital mission > (SpaceX) >
