Re: possible mass bug filing: spamassassin 3
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Steinar H. Gunderson (sgunderson@bigfoot.com) [041116 12:30]:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 10:54:44AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Given that SA3 is a major change, and we had massive memory issues with
> > > the previous upload, the transfer to sarge is a bit delayed. I expect
> > > that SA3 will go in one of these days, and it is _definitly_ on my
> > > direct watch list.
>
> > FWIW, we've run SA3 here (with a couple thousand users) in a woody backport
> > for almost a week now, with no problems. This is of course not to say there
> > is no bugs... :-)
>
> This is definitly one of the good news, and together with the other good
> news I was almost convinced to let SA3 through. However, I'm not too
> sure if bug 279981 needs to be solved prior to SA3 going to sarge, and I
> would like some feedback from the maintainer.
IMHO it only *has* to be fixed in sarge if it affects upgrades from
2.20, which is in stable. Otherwise, documentation on NEWS.Debian should be
enough.
Of course, if there is a safe way to automate this, it would be best. But
one would have to make spamassassin itself detect that the database is of an
older version, and do the cleanup. Anything else is a partial fix that is
actually worse than documenting things properly on NEWS.Debian.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: