[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||ERRATA Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(fedora-perl-devel | |-l...@redhat.com) | --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-04-01 08:43:07 EDT --- It was, and I'm busy with $_DAYJOB and real life, as well as many other Fedora things, so I'll take Warren's suggestion. APPROVED. Thanks all for your help. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2009-03-31 11:28:07 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #18 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-03-31 14:01:09 EDT --- Well, I was waiting for input on the 644 vs 444 permissions issue. I personally don't see any guideline this violates or problem this causes. I guess your ping was for the fedora-perl-list members? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #19 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2009-03-31 15:51:55 EDT --- Perhaps we should just close this? Everything that matters was fixed. This last issue does not matter. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-01-03 01:13:41 EDT --- I have no idea why it happened, and personally I don't see any issue with those files being 444 instead of 644. Perhaps someone from the perl list will enlighten us? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #14 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2008-12-30 12:39:02 EDT --- ok. Happy for any input on the 444 vs 644 issue. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #15 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2008-12-30 20:47:16 EDT --- Why did 444 happen? It seems completely unimportant? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-perl-devel-l...@redh ||at.com Flag||needinfo?(fedora-perl-devel ||-l...@redhat.com) --- Comment #13 from Robert Scheck red...@linuxnetz.de 2008-12-28 16:20:40 EDT --- The guys from the Perl SIG or similar shall explain and decide whether it is needed here, adding hereby and requesting info regarding 444 vs. 644. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #12 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2008-12-16 21:50:08 EDT --- In reply to comment #11: Strange, so you think the perl files should be 644 instead of 444? Is root likely to need to write them? Or is there something thats broken by them being 444? I suppose if it's needed we could just change the defattr for those files? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2008-12-15 09:49:48 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
spamassassin.src:72: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes perl-Mail-SpamAssassin
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause
update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
possible.
Fix.
Well, the problem here is that upsteam uses that package name.
So, if someone installs the upstream rpms, then decides to upgrade
to the fedora one, without this they will get a confusing mix. ;(
Then commenting this in the spec should be sufficient.
spamassassin.src:101: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %{__perl} Makefile.PL
DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/ SYSCONFDIR=%{_sysconfdir} INSTALLDIRS=vendor
ENABLE_SSL=yes /dev/null
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it
will
break short circuiting.
There may be a good reason for this. Is there?
It's not clear to me where it is using the build root. It's setting DESTDIR to
it, but it shouldn't be using it. Will dig more, but ideas welcome.
I'll peek at it.
spamassassin.src: W: strange-permission spamassassin-helper.sh 0755
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
Fix, or document in spec.
It's a shell script that runs and shows the exit code (spam/notspam).
I guess I can add a comment that it's expected to be executable.
That'd be perfect.
rpmlint on RPMS:
spamassassin.i386: E: incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/sa-update
Your logrotate file should be named /etc/logrotate.d/package name.
Fix, if it won't be too catastrophic.
Well, it's not spamassassin itself that logs anything, it's the daily
sa-update job that pulls updates to rules. I think it makes more sense
to leave it as sa-update since thats the command that generates the logs.
Agreed, might want to comment in spec.
spamassassin.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/mail/spamassassin/spamassassin-helper.sh
Executables must not be marked as config files because that may prevent
upgrades from working correctly. If you need to be able to customize an
executable, make it for example read a config file in /etc/sysconfig.
Humm. Not sure why thats marked as config. No one should ever change it.
Sadly, thats generated the file that the make process generates.
It might need a patch or getting upstream to fix it.
Hmm.
spamassassin.i386: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
/etc/rc.d/init.d/spamassassin
A configuration file is stored in your package without the noreplace flag. A
way to resolve this is to put the following in your SPEC file:
%config(noreplace) /etc/your_config_file_here
Fixed above by making it not a config file.
spamassassin.i386: W: dangerous-command-in-%post cp
This is so that updates with old config file options that are no longer
supported will get updated. I don't see any easy way around it.
Neither do I. Comment in spec.
spamassassin.i386: W: no-reload-entry /etc/rc.d/init.d/spamassassin
In your init script (/etc/rc.d/init.d/your_file), you don't have a 'reload'
entry, which is necessary for good functionality.
spamd doesn't have any functionality to do a reload without just restarting
as far as I know.
In this instance, just make reload do what restart does.
Otherwise, full review looks good, no other blockers.
Ok.
new spec: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/spamassassin.spec
diff against old: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/spamassassin.diff
scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=998690
Warren is going to look it over as well.
I'll await his input.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #8 from Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com 2008-12-15 12:59:35 EDT --- I'm OK with his proposed changes. I also suggested switching it to pidgin.spec style automatic boolean setting. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net 2008-12-15 16:10:04 EDT --- That would be fine, too. Kevin, looks like once the above are finished, we're good. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2008-12-16 00:52:49 EDT --- ok. Checked in and built in rawhide. Take a look and see if there is anything further that needs addressing. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1001301 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #11 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzi...@linuxnetz.de 2008-12-16 02:36:15 EDT --- It seems to me, you're lacking a chmod -R u+w $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/* for spamassassin as much of the other perl packages do. All files in the directory /usr/lib/perl5 are readonly, but for perl packages I got in the past usually remembered to change that to 644 rather 444. The same applies to the man pages, so command above should fit and solve. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2008-12-14 21:33:20 EDT ---
rpmlint on SRPM:
spamassassin.src:37: W: redundant-prefix-tag
The Prefix tag is uselessly defined as %{_prefix} in your spec file. It should
be removed, as it is redundant with rpm defaults.
Removed.
spamassassin.src:72: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes perl-Mail-SpamAssassin
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
possible.
Fix.
Well, the problem here is that upsteam uses that package name.
So, if someone installs the upstream rpms, then decides to upgrade
to the fedora one, without this they will get a confusing mix. ;(
spamassassin.src:101: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %{__perl} Makefile.PL
DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/ SYSCONFDIR=%{_sysconfdir} INSTALLDIRS=vendor
ENABLE_SSL=yes /dev/null
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will
break short circuiting.
There may be a good reason for this. Is there?
It's not clear to me where it is using the build root. It's setting DESTDIR to
it, but it shouldn't be using it. Will dig more, but ideas welcome.
spamassassin.src:542: W: macro-in-%changelog postun
Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to
the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that
affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in
possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd
entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in
%changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.
Fixed.
spamassassin.src:580: W: macro-in-%changelog post
Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to
the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that
affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in
possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd
entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in
%changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.
Fixed.
spamassassin.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 135, tab: line
108)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
At least that instance fixed up. ;)
spamassassin.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Spam filter for email which can be
invoked from mail delivery agents.
Summary ends with a dot.
Fix.
Fixed.
spamassassin.src: W: strange-permission spamassassin-helper.sh 0755
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
Fix, or document in spec.
It's a shell script that runs and shows the exit code (spam/notspam).
I guess I can add a comment that it's expected to be executable.
rpmlint on RPMS:
spamassassin.i386: E: incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/sa-update
Your logrotate file should be named /etc/logrotate.d/package name.
Fix, if it won't be too catastrophic.
Well, it's not spamassassin itself that logs anything, it's the daily
sa-update job that pulls updates to rules. I think it makes more sense
to leave it as sa-update since thats the command that generates the logs.
spamassassin.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/logrotate.d/sa-update
A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a
configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration
files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file.
Fix.
Good catch. Fixed.
spamassassin.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/mail/spamassassin/spamassassin-helper.sh
Executables must not be marked as config files because that may prevent
upgrades from working correctly. If you need to be able to customize an
executable, make it for example read a config file in /etc/sysconfig.
Humm. Not sure why thats marked as config. No one should ever change it.
Sadly, thats generated the file that the make process generates.
It might need a patch or getting upstream to fix it.
spamassassin.i386: E: non-readable /etc/cron.d/sa-update 0600
The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security
reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of
exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you
installed rpmlint from the source tarball).
Probably OK.
This makes little sense to me. I would expect 644 here.
Perhaps Warren can chime in with a
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-10 09:11:13 EDT --- Ping? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-10 13:35:15 EDT --- I became a co-maintainer here a while back, and haven't done much since. ;) I guess the least I can do is try and finish off this review. Will take a look soon and get back to you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-12-10 13:46:11 EDT --- Thanks Kevin. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226426
Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-09-17 12:55:24 EDT ---
rpmlint on SRPM:
spamassassin.src:37: W: redundant-prefix-tag
The Prefix tag is uselessly defined as %{_prefix} in your spec file. It should
be removed, as it is redundant with rpm defaults.
spamassassin.src:72: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes perl-Mail-SpamAssassin
The specfile contains an unversioned Obsoletes: token, which will match all
older, equal and newer versions of the obsoleted thing. This may cause update
problems, restrict future package/provides naming, and may match something it
was originally not inteded to match -- make the Obsoletes versioned if
possible.
Fix.
spamassassin.src:101: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build %{__perl} Makefile.PL
DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/ SYSCONFDIR=%{_sysconfdir} INSTALLDIRS=vendor
ENABLE_SSL=yes /dev/null
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT should not be touched during %build or %prep stage, as it will
break short circuiting.
There may be a good reason for this. Is there?
spamassassin.src:542: W: macro-in-%changelog postun
Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to
the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that
affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in
possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd
entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in
%changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.
spamassassin.src:580: W: macro-in-%changelog post
Macros are expanded in %changelog too, which can in unfortunate cases lead to
the package not building at all, or other subtle unexpected conditions that
affect the build. Even when that doesn't happen, the expansion results in
possibly rewriting history on subsequent package revisions and generally odd
entries eg. in source rpms, which is rarely wanted. Avoid use of macros in
%changelog altogether, or use two '%'s to escape them, like '%%foo'.
spamassassin.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 135, tab: line
108)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic
annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
spamassassin.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Spam filter for email which can be
invoked from mail delivery agents.
Summary ends with a dot.
Fix.
spamassassin.src: W: strange-permission spamassassin-helper.sh 0755
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
Fix, or document in spec.
rpmlint on RPMS:
spamassassin.i386: E: incoherent-logrotate-file /etc/logrotate.d/sa-update
Your logrotate file should be named /etc/logrotate.d/package name.
Fix, if it won't be too catastrophic.
spamassassin.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/logrotate.d/sa-update
A non-executable file in your package is being installed in /etc, but is not a
configuration file. All non-executable files in /etc should be configuration
files. Mark the file as %config in the spec file.
Fix.
spamassassin.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/mail/spamassassin/spamassassin-helper.sh
Executables must not be marked as config files because that may prevent
upgrades from working correctly. If you need to be able to customize an
executable, make it for example read a config file in /etc/sysconfig.
spamassassin.i386: E: non-readable /etc/cron.d/sa-update 0600
The file can't be read by everybody. If this is expected (for security
reasons), contact your rpmlint distributor to get it added to the list of
exceptions for your distro (or add it to your local configuration if you
installed rpmlint from the source tarball).
Probably OK.
spamassassin.i386: E: non-standard-executable-perm
/usr/share/spamassassin/sa-update.cron 0744
A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this
message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files
included in your package.
Fix or document.
spamassassin.i386: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/rc.d/init.d/spamassassin
Executables must not be marked as config files because that may prevent
upgrades from working correctly. If you need to be able to customize an
executable, make it for example read a config file in /etc/sysconfig.
Fix.
spamassassin.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Spam filter for email which can be
invoked from mail delivery agents.
Summary ends with a
[Bug 226426] Merge Review: spamassassin
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: spamassassin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226426 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-01-31 16:03 EST --- *** Bug 224477 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
