On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 11:21:20PM -0700, John Rudd wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2005, at 9:29 PM, Duncan Findlay wrote: > > >On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:57:31PM -0700, John Rudd wrote: > >>Does this fix the problem with SIGCHLD? > > > >Do you have a bug number? What problem with SIGCHLD are you talking > >about? > > > > I do not have a bug number. It's a problem I mentioned on the list > just two days ago:
Issues mentioned on the users list won't get fixed unless, a) it's a bug in SpamAssassin and b) it's filed in bugzilla. Most of the developers don't read the users list very thoroughly, and we rely on bugs being reported to bugzilla. So, I think the answer is probably no. Furthermore, it's way too late in the release cycle to be messing with SIGCHLD. This area is full of perl bugs and what we've got seems to work in all (most?) situations? Feel free to file a bug, and maybe it'll be targeted for 3.1.1, but someone has already suggested that it's not a problem in SpamAssassin. -- Duncan Findlay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
