Re: 3.4.3-rc4 was Re: 3.4.3-rc3

On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 12:44:32AM -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > Resending due to the subject issue... > r1866198 that adds v343.pre to the MANIFEST is needed, we need to release a rc5 because of that. Giovanni > On 8/31/2019 12:43 AM, Kevin A. McGrail wrote: > > Evening All, > > > > 3.4.3

[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies

https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735 John Hardin changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jhar...@impsec.org --- Comment #3

[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies

https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735 --- Comment #5 from John Hardin --- (In reply to Henrik Krohns from comment #4) > Yes it's a bit tricky, but honestly, who uses "non-net rulesets" these days > anyway? True. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee

[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies

https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735 --- Comment #2 from Henrik Krohns --- As a related commit, Reuse now forces reusing any net rules (thus the inherited ones also from above). Sendinglib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Plugin/Reuse.pm Transmitting file data .done Committing

[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies

https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735 --- Comment #1 from Henrik Krohns --- Committed net flags inheriting. Sendinglib/Mail/SpamAssassin/Conf/Parser.pm Transmitting file data .done Committing transaction... Committed revision 1866216. Please try to monitor if

[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies

https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735 --- Comment #4 from Henrik Krohns --- Yes it's a bit tricky, but honestly, who uses "non-net rulesets" these days anyway? You can't even use SpamAssassin without sa-update. And those with some strange private network usage, probably don't

[Bug 7735] Meta rules need to handle missing/unrun dependencies

https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7735 --- Comment #6 from Henrik Krohns --- But if some of these rules do indeed disappear from our daily masschecks, I might revert this change to my previous code which was simply Reuse.pm doing the same thing: forcing reuse of the

"use POSIX" in ruleqa?

All: I'd like to add "use POSIX" to some code used in ruleqa - anybody know whether that would break ruleqa because that module isn't installed? Thx! -- John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/ jhar...@impsec.orgFALaholic #11174 pgpk -a

Re: "use POSIX" in ruleqa?

On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 12:08:31PM -0700, John Hardin wrote: > All: > > I'd like to add "use POSIX" to some code used in ruleqa - anybody know > whether that would break ruleqa because that module isn't installed? It's core module, so it's not possible to be missing. What are you planning?