Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Antony Stone]

On Wednesday 16 September 2015 at 10:32:55, Reindl Harald wrote:

> Am 16.09.2015 um 04:25 schrieb Nick Edwards:

> > - and no that is not rude, you have no idea how i sound
> > if i start to get rude
>  
>  the fact you don't feel being rude does not mean you are not.
> >>> 
> >>> Rude, arrogant, abusive, and obnoxious is all he knows, he's been
> >>
> >> you are so much more personally abusive as anybody else
> > 
> > I'm not half as much an abusive arsehole as you are

Will you two please take this cat fight somewhere else?

This list is for discussing problems, and helping people, with spamassassin.


Thank you,


Antony.

-- 
The gravitational attraction exerted by a single doctor at a distance of 6 
inches is roughly twice that of Jupiter at its closest point to the Earth.

   Please reply to the list;
 please *don't* CC me.

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 16.09.2015 um 04:25 schrieb Nick Edwards:

On 9/15/15, Reindl Harald  wrote:



Am 15.09.2015 um 00:05 schrieb Nick Edwards:

On 9/15/15, Matus UHLAR - fantomas  wrote:

On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:

and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who
would
file a bug for *any* package which rely on a internet connection due
update



Am 14.09.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

in such case it's up to the distributions' maintainer to:
- provide static rules in the (maybe separate) package
- to warn user that he must immediately get new rules or the SA won't
work


On 14.09.15 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:

it is a SA 3.4.1 bug that it don't start when
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ while the package ships the static
rules in /usr/share/spamassassin/



with the original 3.4.0 setup it started just fine before sa-update
as i installed all that stuff a year ago

if you would have followed the thread before response you would know
that already


I see this particular information for the first time.
Maybe you could point me to proper place in the archive?
Or maybe you could be more specific instead of blame everyone for
everything?


- and no that is not rude, you have no idea how i sound
if i start to get rude


the fact you don't feel being rude does not mean you are not.


Rude, arrogant, abusive, and obnoxious is all he knows, he's been
kicked off many many mailing lists, and spends most his time here now
Timo has finally moderated him on dovecot list, he has a huge track
record of thinking he's not a bully and does nothing wrong, you only
need 30 seconds of google to see otherwise.


don't remember that i asked *you* especially after you are so much more
personally abusive as anybody else - the list of your personal attacks
is bookmarked, so don't play saint and shut up


what  a dreamland you live in, I'm not half as much an abusive
arsehole as you are, and google shows it


you are - period
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/189665

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201411.mbox/%3CCAMD-=VLKStiPb_6NCn5EY7sNhJO7eAKE9dPpUEffHhH9xM_w=a...@mail.gmail.com%3E
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201410.mbox/%3CCAMD-=VJprfqO-g5M4hQiva5wwHONYqrS+EtGES-+KF=gwat...@mail.gmail.com%3E
http://marc.info/?l=spamassassin-users=141126392202533=2
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201502.mbox/%3CCAMD-=VLSP4sfKaQWRaCTKVkWf+UJSo+wS0czNOCV=mfxlfx...@mail.gmail.com%3E



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Nick Edwards]

lol I KNEW youd that cause you just cant help yourself, trying to draw
attention away from yourself, but thats OK every person whos come
across you knows better,  a simple google of your name shows an
immense number of your vitriol  on many many lists.

the bannings youve had from many many lists shows a pattern of abuse,
it takes a bit to piss off Weitse, but you managed to do it and even
he banned you from postfix list, not to mention some of the centos and
fedora lists, roundcube, dovecot, youve even had a warning in here
from Karsten,  also I wonder why an unbound user joins the bind list,
given time youll be booted from there too because you cant help
yourself, youve been at it for years


https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/advisory-board/2013-May/011984.html
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.general/430887
https://fedorahosted.org/council/ticket/6
http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/527924

I could go on but id be here all month, and next month, and the month after


On 9/16/15, Reindl Harald  wrote:
>
>
> Am 16.09.2015 um 04:25 schrieb Nick Edwards:
>> On 9/15/15, Reindl Harald  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 15.09.2015 um 00:05 schrieb Nick Edwards:
 On 9/15/15, Matus UHLAR - fantomas  wrote:
>>> On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:
 and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who
 would

 file a bug for *any* package which rely on a internet connection
 due
 update
>
>> Am 14.09.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
>>> in such case it's up to the distributions' maintainer to:
>>> - provide static rules in the (maybe separate) package
>>> - to warn user that he must immediately get new rules or the SA
>>> won't
>>> work
>
> On 14.09.15 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> it is a SA 3.4.1 bug that it don't start when
>> /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ while the package ships the static
>> rules in /usr/share/spamassassin/
>
>> with the original 3.4.0 setup it started just fine before sa-update
>> as i installed all that stuff a year ago
>>
>> if you would have followed the thread before response you would know
>> that already
>
> I see this particular information for the first time.
> Maybe you could point me to proper place in the archive?
> Or maybe you could be more specific instead of blame everyone for
> everything?
>
>> - and no that is not rude, you have no idea how i sound
>> if i start to get rude
>
> the fact you don't feel being rude does not mean you are not.

 Rude, arrogant, abusive, and obnoxious is all he knows, he's been
 kicked off many many mailing lists, and spends most his time here now
 Timo has finally moderated him on dovecot list, he has a huge track
 record of thinking he's not a bully and does nothing wrong, you only
 need 30 seconds of google to see otherwise.
>>>
>>> don't remember that i asked *you* especially after you are so much more
>>> personally abusive as anybody else - the list of your personal attacks
>>> is bookmarked, so don't play saint and shut up
>>
>> what  a dreamland you live in, I'm not half as much an abusive
>> arsehole as you are, and google shows it
>
> you are - period
> http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/spamassassin/users/189665
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201411.mbox/%3CCAMD-=VLKStiPb_6NCn5EY7sNhJO7eAKE9dPpUEffHhH9xM_w=a...@mail.gmail.com%3E
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201410.mbox/%3CCAMD-=VJprfqO-g5M4hQiva5wwHONYqrS+EtGES-+KF=gwat...@mail.gmail.com%3E
> http://marc.info/?l=spamassassin-users=141126392202533=2
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201502.mbox/%3CCAMD-=VLSP4sfKaQWRaCTKVkWf+UJSo+wS0czNOCV=mfxlfx...@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
>

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 17.09.2015 um 01:45 schrieb Nick Edwards:

also I wonder why an unbound user joins the bind list


because some people are smart enough to use different software for 
different usecases as unbound for caching-only servers and named for 
autoritative nameservers and for some usecases like routers even dnsmasq?




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Nick Edwards]

On 9/15/15, Reindl Harald  wrote:
>
>
> Am 15.09.2015 um 00:05 schrieb Nick Edwards:
>> On 9/15/15, Matus UHLAR - fantomas  wrote:
> On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who
>> would
>> file a bug for *any* package which rely on a internet connection due
>> update
>>>
 Am 14.09.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
> in such case it's up to the distributions' maintainer to:
> - provide static rules in the (maybe separate) package
> - to warn user that he must immediately get new rules or the SA won't
> work
>>>
>>> On 14.09.15 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:
 it is a SA 3.4.1 bug that it don't start when
 /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ while the package ships the static
 rules in /usr/share/spamassassin/
>>>
 with the original 3.4.0 setup it started just fine before sa-update
 as i installed all that stuff a year ago

 if you would have followed the thread before response you would know
 that already
>>>
>>> I see this particular information for the first time.
>>> Maybe you could point me to proper place in the archive?
>>> Or maybe you could be more specific instead of blame everyone for
>>> everything?
>>>
 - and no that is not rude, you have no idea how i sound
 if i start to get rude
>>>
>>> the fact you don't feel being rude does not mean you are not.
>>
>> Rude, arrogant, abusive, and obnoxious is all he knows, he's been
>> kicked off many many mailing lists, and spends most his time here now
>> Timo has finally moderated him on dovecot list, he has a huge track
>> record of thinking he's not a bully and does nothing wrong, you only
>> need 30 seconds of google to see otherwise.
>
> don't remember that i asked *you* especially after you are so much more
> personally abusive as anybody else - the list of your personal attacks
> is bookmarked, so don't play saint and shut up
>
>

what  a dreamland you live in, I'm not half as much an abusive
arsehole as you are, and google shows it, despite any links you want
to post to this list, google shows EVERYTHING, not only what you hope
people will read but EVERYTHING

How many lists has I been moderated?  ONE - dovecot and thats for
calling you out as the wanker you are, how many lists have you been
moderated on? 6? 7 now with dovecot

How many lists have I been kicked off?  NONE, how many have you been
kicked off? at least one that I know of, maybe two, or was it you left
the fedora list because they refused to unmoderate you, cant recall,
dont care

like I said  the evidence speaks for itself
only you can change your attitude but since you dont think you do any
wrong, snowlfakes in hell before you admit fault.

So, that alone says it all.

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:

and the package maintainer will tell you it should be considered as
bug upstream when updates from the network are mandatory - no package
does that and SA can also be sueful on machines without a internet
connection working with local files and corpus



Am 12.09.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

funny, at least debian SA package does download updates at install time...
you obviously have no experience with distributions...


On 12.09.15 19:18, Reindl Harald wrote:

can we stop that stupid discussion?


I just wanted to point out that different distributions have different
policy (and also that you should stop to be rude to others...).


Fedora/RHEL don't and never will - for obvious reasons - period

and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who 
would file a bug for *any* package which rely on a internet 
connection due update


in such case it's up to the distributions' maintainer to:
- provide static rules in the (maybe separate) package
- to warn user that he must immediately get new rules or the SA won't work.

most of distributions install updates via network and if that happens, it
should not be a problem to connect to network at the install time or from
the (daily) crontab

still, i would consider not installing rules but restarting the SA daemon
(no matter if from pkg hooks) much worse bug than connecting to the network
to get fresh rules.
However, YMMV.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory. 

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 14.09.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:

and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who would
file a bug for *any* package which rely on a internet connection due
update


in such case it's up to the distributions' maintainer to:
- provide static rules in the (maybe separate) package
- to warn user that he must immediately get new rules or the SA won't work


it is a SA 3.4.1 bug that it don't start when 
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ while the package ships the static rules 
in /usr/share/spamassassin/


with the original 3.4.0 setup it started just fine before sa-update as i 
installed all that stuff a year ago


if you would have followed the thread before response you would know 
that already - and no that is not rude, you have no idea how i sound if 
i start to get rude




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Nick Edwards]

On 9/15/15, Matus UHLAR - fantomas  wrote:
>>>On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:
and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who would
file a bug for *any* package which rely on a internet connection due
update
>
>>Am 14.09.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:
>>>in such case it's up to the distributions' maintainer to:
>>>- provide static rules in the (maybe separate) package
>>>- to warn user that he must immediately get new rules or the SA won't
>>> work
>
> On 14.09.15 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>it is a SA 3.4.1 bug that it don't start when
>>/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ while the package ships the static
>>rules in /usr/share/spamassassin/
>
>>with the original 3.4.0 setup it started just fine before sa-update
>>as i installed all that stuff a year ago
>>
>>if you would have followed the thread before response you would know
>>that already
>
> I see this particular information for the first time.
> Maybe you could point me to proper place in the archive?
> Or maybe you could be more specific instead of blame everyone for
> everything?
>
>> - and no that is not rude, you have no idea how i sound
>>if i start to get rude
>
> the fact you don't feel being rude does not mean you are not.


Rude, arrogant, abusive, and obnoxious is all he knows, he's been
kicked off many many mailing lists, and spends most his time here now
Timo has finally moderated him on dovecot list, he has a huge track
record of thinking he's not a bully and does nothing wrong, you only
need 30 seconds of google to see otherwise.

Though he has tamed it down a lot in recent months, probably because
he realizes finally he's running out of mailing lists to post on.

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 15.09.2015 um 00:05 schrieb Nick Edwards:

On 9/15/15, Matus UHLAR - fantomas  wrote:

On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:

and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who would
file a bug for *any* package which rely on a internet connection due
update



Am 14.09.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

in such case it's up to the distributions' maintainer to:
- provide static rules in the (maybe separate) package
- to warn user that he must immediately get new rules or the SA won't
work


On 14.09.15 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:

it is a SA 3.4.1 bug that it don't start when
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ while the package ships the static
rules in /usr/share/spamassassin/



with the original 3.4.0 setup it started just fine before sa-update
as i installed all that stuff a year ago

if you would have followed the thread before response you would know
that already


I see this particular information for the first time.
Maybe you could point me to proper place in the archive?
Or maybe you could be more specific instead of blame everyone for
everything?


- and no that is not rude, you have no idea how i sound
if i start to get rude


the fact you don't feel being rude does not mean you are not.


Rude, arrogant, abusive, and obnoxious is all he knows, he's been
kicked off many many mailing lists, and spends most his time here now
Timo has finally moderated him on dovecot list, he has a huge track
record of thinking he's not a bully and does nothing wrong, you only
need 30 seconds of google to see otherwise.


don't remember that i asked *you* especially after you are so much more 
personally abusive as anybody else - the list of your personal attacks 
is bookmarked, so don't play saint and shut up




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:

and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who would
file a bug for *any* package which rely on a internet connection due
update



Am 14.09.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

in such case it's up to the distributions' maintainer to:
- provide static rules in the (maybe separate) package
- to warn user that he must immediately get new rules or the SA won't work


On 14.09.15 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:
it is a SA 3.4.1 bug that it don't start when 
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ while the package ships the static 
rules in /usr/share/spamassassin/


with the original 3.4.0 setup it started just fine before sa-update 
as i installed all that stuff a year ago


if you would have followed the thread before response you would know 
that already 


I see this particular information for the first time.
Maybe you could point me to proper place in the archive?
Or maybe you could be more specific instead of blame everyone for
everything?

- and no that is not rude, you have no idea how i sound 
if i start to get rude


the fact you don't feel being rude does not mean you are not.
--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot. 

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 14.09.2015 um 20:13 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:

and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who would
file a bug for *any* package which rely on a internet connection due
update



Am 14.09.2015 um 17:25 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

in such case it's up to the distributions' maintainer to:
- provide static rules in the (maybe separate) package
- to warn user that he must immediately get new rules or the SA won't
work


On 14.09.15 18:40, Reindl Harald wrote:

it is a SA 3.4.1 bug that it don't start when
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ while the package ships the static
rules in /usr/share/spamassassin/



with the original 3.4.0 setup it started just fine before sa-update as
i installed all that stuff a year ago

if you would have followed the thread before response you would know
that already


I see this particular information for the first time.
Maybe you could point me to proper place in the archive?
Or maybe you could be more specific instead of blame everyone for
everything?



 Weitergeleitete Nachricht 
Betreff: Re: Live upgrade safe?
Datum: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 01:44:25 +0200
Von: Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net>
An: users@spamassassin.apache.org

Am 14.09.2015 um 01:41 schrieb Reindl Harald:
>
>
> Am 14.09.2015 um 01:35 schrieb Greg Troxel:
>> Reindl Harald <h.rei...@thelounge.net> writes:
>>
>>> RPM packages are not supposed to contact network *3rd party*
>>> ressources at install time and when you think 1 second you know why -
>>> who tells you that the 3rd party ressource is available at that moment
>>> and how handle errors and bugreports when it fails?
>>>
>>> that will never happen in a distribution package - no idea why you
>>> think we need to discuss that or even you can consider something as
>>> bug when you obviously have no expierience with distributions..
>>
>> In pkgsrc, it is also considered a bug for a package installation to use
>> the net.   Our spamassassin package doesn't, and users have to run
>> sa-update before starting it after upgrades.   This seems broken to me;
>> it seems that a release should come with rules, even if we know that
>> people should be updating to more modern ones.   This seems to be a
>> recent change; I don't remember getting bit by it until just now.
>
> it *comes* with rules but at least with 3.4.1 there where crashes
> without reported running "sa-update", there are always the default
> scores and rules besides /var/lib/spamassassin

here you go - /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ empty and it fails to start

[root@testserver:~]$ rm -rf /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/*
[root@testserver:~]$ systemctl restart spamassassin.service
[root@testserver:~]$ cat messages
Sep 14 01:00:31 testserver systemd: Stopping Spamassassin Daemon...
Sep 14 01:00:31 testserver systemd: Starting Spamassassin Daemon...
Sep 14 01:00:31 testserver systemd: Started Spamassassin Daemon.
Sep 14 01:37:00 testserver su: (to builduser) root on pts/1
Sep 14 01:42:43 testserver systemd: Stopping Spamassassin Daemon...
Sep 14 01:42:43 testserver systemd: Starting Spamassassin Daemon...
Sep 14 01:42:43 testserver systemd: Started Spamassassin Daemon.
Sep 14 01:42:44 testserver systemd: spamassassin.service: main process
exited, code=exited, status=255/n/a
Sep 14 01:42:44 testserver systemd: Unit spamassassin.service entered
failed state.
Sep 14 01:42:44 testserver systemd: spamassassin.service failed.
Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: spamassassin.service holdoff time
over, scheduling restart.
Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: Starting Spamassassin Daemon...
Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: Started Spamassassin Daemon.
Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: spamassassin.service: main process
exited, code=exited, status=255/n/a
Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: Unit spamassassin.service entered
failed state.
Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: spamassassin.service failed.
[root@testserver:~]$


after "sa-update" all is fine

[root@testserver:~]$ sa-update
[root@testserver:~]$ systemctl restart spamassassin.service
[root@testserver:~]$ systemctl status spamassassin.service
● spamassassin.service - Spamassassin Daemon
Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/spamassassin.service; enabled;
vendor preset: disabled)
Active: active (running) since Mo 2015-09-14 01:43:47 CEST; 10s ago
Process: 103996 ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/find /var/lib/spamassassin/
-type f -exec /bin/chmod 0644 {} ; (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
Process: 103991 ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/find /var/lib/spamassassin/
-type d -exec /bin/chmod 0755 {} ; (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
Main PID: 104066 (spamd)


> rpm -q --filesbypkg spamassassin | grep /usr/share/spamassassin/
> spamassassin

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Benny Pedersen]

On September 14, 2015 2:25:19 AM Reindl Harald  wrote:


you are talking bullshit!


what ?

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Benny Pedersen]

Greg Troxel skrev den 2015-09-14 01:35:

I don't remember getting bit by it until just now.


ask your self, what will happend if you upgraded rpm package that is 
possible new in the rpm repos, but cointains also the rules that are 
old, and you daily have used sa-update via cron, do you then like to 
have the new rules from rpm, or sa-update rules ?


i can give another example of so called brokken rpm, but i stop here, 
clamav had also old main.cvd and daily.cvd that maked the tarball very 
big for gentoo users to just update the source to new version, the 
compiled tbz2 file was less size then the tarball, hmm


i think spamassassin olso have learned a lesson here :=)

think one more time, it does matter

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 14.09.2015 um 01:41 schrieb Reindl Harald:



Am 14.09.2015 um 01:35 schrieb Greg Troxel:

Reindl Harald  writes:


RPM packages are not supposed to contact network *3rd party*
ressources at install time and when you think 1 second you know why -
who tells you that the 3rd party ressource is available at that moment
and how handle errors and bugreports when it fails?

that will never happen in a distribution package - no idea why you
think we need to discuss that or even you can consider something as
bug when you obviously have no expierience with distributions..


In pkgsrc, it is also considered a bug for a package installation to use
the net.   Our spamassassin package doesn't, and users have to run
sa-update before starting it after upgrades.   This seems broken to me;
it seems that a release should come with rules, even if we know that
people should be updating to more modern ones.   This seems to be a
recent change; I don't remember getting bit by it until just now.


it *comes* with rules but at least with 3.4.1 there where crashes
without reported running "sa-update", there are always the default
scores and rules besides /var/lib/spamassassin


here you go - /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ empty and it fails to start

[root@testserver:~]$ rm -rf /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/*
[root@testserver:~]$ systemctl restart spamassassin.service
[root@testserver:~]$ cat messages
Sep 14 01:00:31 testserver systemd: Stopping Spamassassin Daemon...
Sep 14 01:00:31 testserver systemd: Starting Spamassassin Daemon...
Sep 14 01:00:31 testserver systemd: Started Spamassassin Daemon.
Sep 14 01:37:00 testserver su: (to builduser) root on pts/1
Sep 14 01:42:43 testserver systemd: Stopping Spamassassin Daemon...
Sep 14 01:42:43 testserver systemd: Starting Spamassassin Daemon...
Sep 14 01:42:43 testserver systemd: Started Spamassassin Daemon.
Sep 14 01:42:44 testserver systemd: spamassassin.service: main process 
exited, code=exited, status=255/n/a
Sep 14 01:42:44 testserver systemd: Unit spamassassin.service entered 
failed state.

Sep 14 01:42:44 testserver systemd: spamassassin.service failed.
Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: spamassassin.service holdoff time 
over, scheduling restart.

Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: Starting Spamassassin Daemon...
Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: Started Spamassassin Daemon.
Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: spamassassin.service: main process 
exited, code=exited, status=255/n/a
Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: Unit spamassassin.service entered 
failed state.

Sep 14 01:42:45 testserver systemd: spamassassin.service failed.
[root@testserver:~]$


after "sa-update" all is fine

[root@testserver:~]$ sa-update
[root@testserver:~]$ systemctl restart spamassassin.service
[root@testserver:~]$ systemctl status spamassassin.service
● spamassassin.service - Spamassassin Daemon
   Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/spamassassin.service; enabled; 
vendor preset: disabled)

   Active: active (running) since Mo 2015-09-14 01:43:47 CEST; 10s ago
  Process: 103996 ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/find /var/lib/spamassassin/ 
-type f -exec /bin/chmod 0644 {} ; (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)
  Process: 103991 ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/find /var/lib/spamassassin/ 
-type d -exec /bin/chmod 0755 {} ; (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS)

 Main PID: 104066 (spamd)



rpm -q --filesbypkg spamassassin | grep /usr/share/spamassassin/
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/10_default_prefs.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/10_hasbase.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_advance_fee.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_aux_tlds.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_body_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_compensate.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_dnsbl_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_drugs.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_dynrdns.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_fake_helo_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_freemail.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_freemail_domains.cf
spamassassin /usr/share/spamassassin/20_freemail_mailcom_domains.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_head_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_html_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_imageinfo.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_mailspike.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_meta_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_net_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_pdfinfo.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_phrases.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_porn.cf
spamassassin  

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 14.09.2015 um 02:17 schrieb Benny Pedersen:

Greg Troxel skrev den 2015-09-14 01:35:

I don't remember getting bit by it until just now.


ask your self, what will happend if you upgraded rpm package that is
possible new in the rpm repos, but cointains also the rules that are
old, and you daily have used sa-update via cron, do you then like to
have the new rules from rpm, or sa-update rules ?


you are talking bullshit!

/var/lib/spamassassin overrides /usr/share and guess what the default 
rules and scores are also present when you don't use RPM



i can give another example of so called brokken rpm, but i stop here,
clamav had also old main.cvd and daily.cvd that maked the tarball very
big for gentoo users to just update the source to new version, the
compiled tbz2 file was less size then the tarball, hmm


guess what the "clamav-data-empty-0.98.7-1.fc21.noarch" package is


i think spamassassin olso have learned a lesson here :=)
think one more time, it does matter


i suggest you think before talking about things you have no diea that often



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 14.09.2015 um 01:35 schrieb Greg Troxel:

Reindl Harald  writes:


RPM packages are not supposed to contact network *3rd party*
ressources at install time and when you think 1 second you know why -
who tells you that the 3rd party ressource is available at that moment
and how handle errors and bugreports when it fails?

that will never happen in a distribution package - no idea why you
think we need to discuss that or even you can consider something as
bug when you obviously have no expierience with distributions..


In pkgsrc, it is also considered a bug for a package installation to use
the net.   Our spamassassin package doesn't, and users have to run
sa-update before starting it after upgrades.   This seems broken to me;
it seems that a release should come with rules, even if we know that
people should be updating to more modern ones.   This seems to be a
recent change; I don't remember getting bit by it until just now.


it *comes* with rules but at least with 3.4.1 there where crashes 
without reported running "sa-update", there are always the default 
scores and rules besides /var/lib/spamassassin


rpm -q --filesbypkg spamassassin | grep /usr/share/spamassassin/
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/10_default_prefs.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/10_hasbase.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_advance_fee.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_aux_tlds.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_body_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_compensate.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_dnsbl_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_drugs.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_dynrdns.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_fake_helo_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_freemail.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_freemail_domains.cf
spamassassin 
/usr/share/spamassassin/20_freemail_mailcom_domains.cf

spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_head_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_html_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_imageinfo.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_mailspike.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_meta_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_net_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_pdfinfo.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_phrases.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_porn.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_ratware.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_uri_tests.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/20_vbounce.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/23_bayes.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_accessdb.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_antivirus.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_asn.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_dcc.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_dkim.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_hashcash.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_pyzor.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_razor2.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_replace.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_spf.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_textcat.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/25_uribl.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_de.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_fr.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_it.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_nl.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_pl.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/30_text_pt_br.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/50_scores.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/60_adsp_override_dkim.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/60_awl.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/60_shortcircuit.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/60_whitelist.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/60_whitelist_dkim.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/60_whitelist_spf.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/60_whitelist_subject.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/72_active.cf
spamassassin  /usr/share/spamassassin/72_scores.cf
spamassassin 
/usr/share/spamassassin/73_sandbox_manual_scores.cf
spamassassin 
/usr/share/spamassassin/STATISTICS-set0-72_scores.cf.txt
spamassassin 
/usr/share/spamassassin/STATISTICS-set1-72_scores.cf.txt
spamassassin 

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Greg Troxel]

Reindl Harald  writes:

> RPM packages are not supposed to contact network *3rd party*
> ressources at install time and when you think 1 second you know why -
> who tells you that the 3rd party ressource is available at that moment
> and how handle errors and bugreports when it fails?
>
> that will never happen in a distribution package - no idea why you
> think we need to discuss that or even you can consider something as
> bug when you obviously have no expierience with distributions..

In pkgsrc, it is also considered a bug for a package installation to use
the net.   Our spamassassin package doesn't, and users have to run
sa-update before starting it after upgrades.   This seems broken to me;
it seems that a release should come with rules, even if we know that
people should be updating to more modern ones.   This seems to be a
recent change; I don't remember getting bit by it until just now.


pgpn7Ps36Py8r.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 12.09.2015 um 19:15 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:

and the package maintainer will tell you it should be considered as
bug upstream when updates from the network are mandatory - no package
does that and SA can also be sueful on machines without a internet
connection working with local files and corpus



Am 12.09.2015 um 16:08 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

did this really happen?


On 12.09.15 16:13, Reindl Harald wrote:

what did really happen?

RPM packages are not supposed to contact network *3rd party*
ressources at install time and when you think 1 second you know why -
who tells you that the 3rd party ressource is available at that moment
and how handle errors and bugreports when it fails?

that will never happen in a distribution package - no idea why you
think we need to discuss that or even you can consider something as
bug when you obviously have no expierience with distributions..


funny, at least debian SA package does download updates at install time...
you obviously have no experience with distributions...


can we stop that stupid discussion?
Fedora/RHEL don't and never will - for obvious reasons - period

and no, i am not the package maintainer but the first person who would 
file a bug for *any* package which rely on a internet connection due update




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:

and the package maintainer will tell you it should be considered as
bug upstream when updates from the network are mandatory - no package
does that and SA can also be sueful on machines without a internet
connection working with local files and corpus



Am 12.09.2015 um 16:08 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

did this really happen?


On 12.09.15 16:13, Reindl Harald wrote:

what did really happen?

RPM packages are not supposed to contact network *3rd party* 
ressources at install time and when you think 1 second you know why - 
who tells you that the 3rd party ressource is available at that 
moment and how handle errors and bugreports when it fails?


that will never happen in a distribution package - no idea why you 
think we need to discuss that or even you can consider something as 
bug when you obviously have no expierience with distributions..


funny, at least debian SA package does download updates at install time...
you obviously have no experience with distributions...

--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Save the whales. Collect the whole set.

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

Am 11.09.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

if your distribution restarts spamassassin, it will most probably
download the rules before.  Not everyone uses distributions...



On 12.09.15 04:20, Reindl Harald wrote:

no, the service restarts are usually rpm-macros in the %post section
and not invoke sa-update



Am 12.09.2015 um 15:24 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

then it (not calling sa-update) should be considered a bug in installation
scripts...


On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:
and the package maintainer will tell you it should be considered as 
bug upstream when updates from the network are mandatory - no package 
does that and SA can also be sueful on machines without a internet 
connection working with local files and corpus


did this really happen?

--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity...

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 12.09.2015 um 16:08 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

Am 11.09.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

if your distribution restarts spamassassin, it will most probably
download the rules before.  Not everyone uses distributions...



On 12.09.15 04:20, Reindl Harald wrote:

no, the service restarts are usually rpm-macros in the %post section
and not invoke sa-update



Am 12.09.2015 um 15:24 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

then it (not calling sa-update) should be considered a bug in
installation
scripts...


On 12.09.15 15:27, Reindl Harald wrote:

and the package maintainer will tell you it should be considered as
bug upstream when updates from the network are mandatory - no package
does that and SA can also be sueful on machines without a internet
connection working with local files and corpus


did this really happen?


what did really happen?

RPM packages are not supposed to contact network *3rd party* ressources 
at install time and when you think 1 second you know why - who tells you 
that the 3rd party ressource is available at that moment and how handle 
errors and bugreports when it fails?


that will never happen in a distribution package - no idea why you think 
we need to discuss that or even you can consider something as bug when 
you obviously have no expierience with distributions..




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

Am 11.09.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

if your distribution restarts spamassassin, it will most probably download
the rules before. Not everyone uses distributions...


On 12.09.15 04:20, Reindl Harald wrote:
no, the service restarts are usually rpm-macros in the %post section 
and not invoke sa-update


then it (not calling sa-update) should be considered a bug in installation
scripts...


--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
"They say when you play that M$ CD backward you can hear satanic messages."
"That's nothing. If you play it forward it will install Windows."

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 12.09.2015 um 15:24 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

Am 11.09.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

if your distribution restarts spamassassin, it will most probably
download
the rules before. Not everyone uses distributions...


On 12.09.15 04:20, Reindl Harald wrote:

no, the service restarts are usually rpm-macros in the %post section
and not invoke sa-update


then it (not calling sa-update) should be considered a bug in installation
scripts...


and the package maintainer will tell you it should be considered as bug 
upstream when updates from the network are mandatory - no package does 
that and SA can also be sueful on machines without a internet connection 
working with local files and corpus




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 11.09.2015 um 17:54 schrieb RW:

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:21:15 -0700
Ian Zimmerman wrote:


On 2015-08-14 17:45 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:


Can I safely upgrade SA from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 without changing any
local configuration files, and without regenerating the Bayes
database?  (I use the default bdb Bayes store.)


yes, but you need to run "sa-update" before restart to fetch the
latest rules and hopefully have a distribution which restarts
automatically after update the package


Isn't this a contradiction?  If my distribution automatically restarts
(which it does), how can I sneak in a sa-update run after the upgrade
but before the restart?


You need a restart to run the new software or pickup new rules. You
don't need to avoid a restart between a package update and a rule
update.


i saw spamassassin just crash after upgrade on Fedora before 
/var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/ was filled by sa-update and i remember 
at least one post on this list observing the same problem on a different 
environment



If you are running sa-update from cron you  don't really need to run it
manually unless you are updating from a very old version that didn't
support sa-update or no longer receives updates


you are aware that the previous version don't matter

3.4.1 uses /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004001/
3.4.0 uses /var/lib/spamassassin/3.004000/

so it is *completly* irrelevant from which version you upgrade



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 11.09.2015 um 18:05 schrieb Ian Zimmerman:

On 2015-09-11 17:35 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:


Can I safely upgrade SA from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 without changing any local
configuration files, and without regenerating the Bayes database?  (I
use the default bdb Bayes store.)


yes, but you need to run "sa-update" before restart to fetch the
latest rules and hopefully have a distribution which restarts
automatically after update the package


Isn't this a contradiction?  If my distribution automatically restarts
(which it does), how can I sneak in a sa-update run after the upgrade
but before the restart?


i hope you have a testing environment for production and so just make
the "sa-update" there and rsync the rule-updates to the liveserver


I appreciate you trying to help, but you don't really answer my
question.  Even if I could do what you suggest, the rsync would still
take finite time - longer than the interval between the upgrade and the
restart on the production system.


no, you don't need to change anything else

in most setups regenerate bayes would even be impossible because you 
don't have the autolearned messages to do so


if you have your whole corpus (like we do) you should rebuild the bayes 
again from the samples - especially if you are using "normalize_charset 
1" and possibly to make "bayes_token_sources all" if you chose to use it 
also benefit from the older samples but there is no need to do so, the 
old bayes don't become useles




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 11.09.2015 um 18:12 schrieb Benny Pedersen:

Ian Zimmerman skrev den 2015-09-11 18:05:


I appreciate you trying to help, but you don't really answer my
question.  Even if I could do what you suggest, the rsync would still
take finite time - longer than the interval between the upgrade and the
restart on the production system.


if you recently upgraded:

sa-update
... more sa-update if you use custom channels
sa-compile

restart spamd or other glues

sa-compile is only need if you use the plugin

put it all in a bash file and run whenever its needed in cron, but not
more then daily


there is no reason to fiddle around with cron, on distributions with as 
you call it "precompiled problems" it's taken care that:


a) sa-update runs once per day
b) on a random timeframe to not overload upstream servers
   compared all installations doing it at the same moment
c) restart the service *only* if there where updates



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Benny Pedersen]

Ian Zimmerman skrev den 2015-09-11 17:21:


Isn't this a contradiction?  If my distribution automatically restarts
(which it does), how can I sneak in a sa-update run after the upgrade
but before the restart?


ask the precompiled problem maintainer, not here, your packege is not 
doing well if that part misses

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2015-09-11 17:35 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:

> >>>Can I safely upgrade SA from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 without changing any local
> >>>configuration files, and without regenerating the Bayes database?  (I
> >>>use the default bdb Bayes store.)
> >>
> >>yes, but you need to run "sa-update" before restart to fetch the
> >>latest rules and hopefully have a distribution which restarts
> >>automatically after update the package
> >
> >Isn't this a contradiction?  If my distribution automatically restarts
> >(which it does), how can I sneak in a sa-update run after the upgrade
> >but before the restart?
> 
> i hope you have a testing environment for production and so just make
> the "sa-update" there and rsync the rule-updates to the liveserver

I appreciate you trying to help, but you don't really answer my
question.  Even if I could do what you suggest, the rsync would still
take finite time - longer than the interval between the upgrade and the
restart on the production system.

-- 
Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages.
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Matus UHLAR - fantomas]

>Can I safely upgrade SA from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 without changing any local
>configuration files, and without regenerating the Bayes database?  (I
>use the default bdb Bayes store.)



On 2015-08-14 17:45 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:

yes, but you need to run "sa-update" before restart to fetch the
latest rules and hopefully have a distribution which restarts
automatically after update the package


On 11.09.15 08:21, Ian Zimmerman wrote:

Isn't this a contradiction?  If my distribution automatically restarts
(which it does), how can I sneak in a sa-update run after the upgrade
but before the restart?


if your distribution restarts spamassassin, it will most probably download
the rules before. 
Not everyone uses distributions...

--
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
It's now safe to throw off your computer.

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 11.09.2015 um 21:08 schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas:

>Can I safely upgrade SA from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 without changing any local
>configuration files, and without regenerating the Bayes database?  (I
>use the default bdb Bayes store.)



On 2015-08-14 17:45 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:

yes, but you need to run "sa-update" before restart to fetch the
latest rules and hopefully have a distribution which restarts
automatically after update the package


On 11.09.15 08:21, Ian Zimmerman wrote:

Isn't this a contradiction?  If my distribution automatically restarts
(which it does), how can I sneak in a sa-update run after the upgrade
but before the restart?


if your distribution restarts spamassassin, it will most probably download
the rules before. Not everyone uses distributions...


no, the service restarts are usually rpm-macros in the %post section and 
not invoke sa-update




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Ian Zimmerman]

On 2015-08-14 17:45 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:

> >Can I safely upgrade SA from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 without changing any local
> >configuration files, and without regenerating the Bayes database?  (I
> >use the default bdb Bayes store.)
> 
> yes, but you need to run "sa-update" before restart to fetch the
> latest rules and hopefully have a distribution which restarts
> automatically after update the package

Isn't this a contradiction?  If my distribution automatically restarts
(which it does), how can I sneak in a sa-update run after the upgrade
but before the restart?

-- 
Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages.
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 11.09.2015 um 17:21 schrieb Ian Zimmerman:

On 2015-08-14 17:45 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:


Can I safely upgrade SA from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 without changing any local
configuration files, and without regenerating the Bayes database?  (I
use the default bdb Bayes store.)


yes, but you need to run "sa-update" before restart to fetch the
latest rules and hopefully have a distribution which restarts
automatically after update the package


Isn't this a contradiction?  If my distribution automatically restarts
(which it does), how can I sneak in a sa-update run after the upgrade
but before the restart?


i hope you have a testing environment for production and so just make 
the "sa-update" there and rsync the rule-updates to the liveserver




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[RW]

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:21:15 -0700
Ian Zimmerman wrote:

> On 2015-08-14 17:45 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> > >Can I safely upgrade SA from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 without changing any
> > >local configuration files, and without regenerating the Bayes
> > >database?  (I use the default bdb Bayes store.)
> > 
> > yes, but you need to run "sa-update" before restart to fetch the
> > latest rules and hopefully have a distribution which restarts
> > automatically after update the package
> 
> Isn't this a contradiction?  If my distribution automatically restarts
> (which it does), how can I sneak in a sa-update run after the upgrade
> but before the restart?


You need a restart to run the new software or pickup new rules. You
don't need to avoid a restart between a package update and a rule
update.

If you are running sa-update from cron you  don't really need to run it
manually unless you are updating from a very old version that didn't
support sa-update or no longer receives updates.

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Benny Pedersen]

Ian Zimmerman skrev den 2015-09-11 18:05:


I appreciate you trying to help, but you don't really answer my
question.  Even if I could do what you suggest, the rsync would still
take finite time - longer than the interval between the upgrade and the
restart on the production system.


if you recently upgraded:

sa-update
... more sa-update if you use custom channels
sa-compile

restart spamd or other glues

sa-compile is only need if you use the plugin

put it all in a bash file and run whenever its needed in cron, but not 
more then daily

Live upgrade safe?

[Ian Zimmerman]

Can I safely upgrade SA from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 without changing any local
configuration files, and without regenerating the Bayes database?  (I
use the default bdb Bayes store.)

-- 
Please *no* private copies of mailing list or newsgroup messages.
Rule 420: All persons more than eight miles high to leave the court.

Re: Live upgrade safe?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 14.08.2015 um 17:32 schrieb Ian Zimmerman:

Can I safely upgrade SA from 3.4.0 to 3.4.1 without changing any local
configuration files, and without regenerating the Bayes database?  (I
use the default bdb Bayes store.)


yes, but you need to run sa-update before restart to fetch the latest 
rules and hopefully have a distribution which restarts automatically 
after update the package




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature