On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 11:56:29PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> So in 2.50 now, naming doesn't matter now for meta meta dependencies;
> the code will figure out what order to run the tests in, including
> circular dependencies, and do the right thing. :)
Way cool, thanks.
-Jeremy
--
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 06:27:47PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Ok, I cleaned up the do_meta code a little bit and added in the
> "strategic" sort. :)
I first tried changing the line
my @tests = keys %{$self->{conf}{meta_tests}};
to just sort the keys, but that explodes badly -- you pret
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 06:27:47PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> Ok, I cleaned up the do_meta code a little bit and added in the
> "strategic" sort. :)
Ok again, after fussing around with do_meta tonight, I figured out that
it wouldn't be hard to put in the full dependency algorithm, so I coded
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 05:45:31PM -0500, Theo Van Dinter wrote:
> I'll look at the code and see what I can come up with. I'd think, as you
> say, a strategically placed sort() would do the trick for the time being.
Ok, I cleaned up the do_meta code a little bit and added in the
"strategic" sort.
On Thu, Dec 26, 2002 at 05:09:57PM -0500, Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> I suspect my problem is related to the order in which meta rules are
> evaluated, or the "legality" of nesting them. Is there some limit to
> the depth to which meta rules can be nested inside other meta rules?
> I had one like "meta
So I'm having some difficulty grasping some stuff about "meta" rules.
Maybe now that I've got >350 lines of local spamassassin config, it's
time for me to delve into the source and join the devel list or
something, but let's see if I can figure this out.
I suspect my problem is related to the ord
