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

Re: possible mass bug filing: spamassassin 3

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 03:01:03PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > 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.

It doesn't affect upgrades from 2.20 which have no Bayes at all. The
only solution is documenting the issue.

> I agree with you that fixing is only required if this might be a problem
> for upgrades from woody. As this bug report is quite young, I think the
> best thing really is to give the maintainer enough time to take a look
> at it, and decide whether this needs to be fixed first (and if, how) or
> not.

I don't recommend 3.0.1 go into sarge. 3.0.2 will be released shortly,
and that fixes a few more bugs that should make it mature enough. This
bug, specifically, can only be solved by documentation as there is no
reliable way for spamassassin to find every bayesian database;
furthermore, it may be a violation of policy (? havent checked
recently) or at least considered harmful for a maintainer script to
change stuff in /home where most Bayes databases lie.

Spamassassin tries to overcome this but automatically rebuilding while
processing if necessary; however, this can be problematic as multiple
processes try to access the same database while it's being synced,
causing them to wait (often for a while). (IIRC)

Duncan Findlay

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: