On Thu, 8/3/2006 11:01:09 -0400 Theo Van Dinter wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 10:15:47AM -0400, Will Nordmeyer wrote: > > If I run sa-update without any other parameters, it'll create an update > > dir put the updates in it and spamassassin will use the generated > > updates dir by default (do I need to restart SA, or does sa-update > > handle that?). > > Yes. As for restart, sa-update won't do that for you. > > > If I use the --updatedir parameter I have to go into SA and rewrite it > > to use my updatedir. > > Or otherwise include the new config files in some other way ala in > /etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf (or a similarly named file): > > include /where/I/want/updates/to/be/channel.cf > > I forgot to mention this in my previous mail, sorry. > > > If I use --updatedir and point it to the SA default rules dir, I'm > > screwed. > > Not screwed, but you'll break some parts of SpamAssassin, yes. The > default rules directory is meant to be written to during installation > and that's it. In the end, you can do what you want with it, but if you > remove critical files, you shouldn't expect things to work correctly. > > > Have I summarized sa-update usage properly? > > Your intimating that sa-update sucks, where IMHO the problems described > here are with its usage and an expectation that the software in general > should DWIM as opposed to DWIS. > > In general, if you don't like how something works, feel free to open a > ticket and provide a patch. :) > Not my intent at all Theo... Just trying to distill it down to something easy. And that is - if you run sa-update and let it make all the decisions about update dirs/etc. Then the updates are easy, simple and everybody happily plays well together.
And (to me) yeah - I'm screwed if I decide my update dir is the same as my default rules dir - not because sa-update sucks at all... but because I didn't differentiate between DEFAULT rules and UPDATES. My apologies - sa-update is a wonderful feature, I was quite pleased when I saw it added...
