[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: possible mass bug filing: spamassassin 3

Steinar H. Gunderson [u] wrote on 06/10/2004 18:29:

>> On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 04:33:37PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>>>>I say: remove all the others from Sarge unless or until they comply
>>>>with SA 3.
>> OK, so you want to remove exim4 from sarge, thus breaking installation
>> altogether?

??? Since when does exim4 use SA by default? AFAIK, you have to
specifically configure it to use it. Right? If so, there should be no
reason to remove it or for it to conflict with SA3.

>> Eh. spamassassin has had a long-standing, well-known API, and suddenly
>> changes it. It is _SA_ which broke this, not the other applications.

If a program is a front-end for SA and only works if SA is installed,
then it should keep up with any changes SA is doing to its API. SA3 has
long before been in beta testing AFAIK, so it should've been quite easy
for those maintainers to fix their programs. And SA3 API isn't _that_
much different from SA2.6 API for the most used interfaces. I had to
change as much as 3 lines in SpamPD 2.12 to make it work with SA3,
though upstream did a cleaner job by supporting SA <2.7, SA <3.0 and SA
3.0 in one script as of SpamPD 2.2(0).


Reply to: