>>>> Wow, really? Then why wouldn't RedHat or CentOS have a fixed
>>>> updated >>>> version in their repo? That seems egregious if what you say is >>>> indeed the >>>> case. >>> >>> RedHat (and CentOS, since their whole mission is to match RHEL >>> feature-for-feature and bug-for-bug) believes that their Enterprise >>> Linux >>> customers value consistency over currency. They release updates to >>> patch >>> security holes, but their general attitude is that if Red Hat 5.0 >>> shipped >>> with foo_1.1.3 in 2007, then Red Hat 5.7 should also ship with >>> foo_1.1.3 >>> because their customers may have whole workflows built around the way >>> foo_1.1.3 handles a specific command flag and foo_1.2.7 may have >>> changed >>> that. If necessary, they'll backport security patches from later >>> versions >>> of foo back to the current, leading to RPM names like >>> foo_1.1.3-17.el5_7 >>> -- but they won't add feature changes unless absolutely >>> unavoidable. >> >> Sure, but the point is that my spamassassin and per-Net-DNS (where the >> error is happening?) are up to date from the CentOS repo.... so >> shouldn't >> they work without an error when spamassassin restarts? > > insisting and asking the SA list why Centos does something is not going > to get you anywhere. You were told why - and if not send your complaints > to RedHAt which is responsible for the sources. Centos only repackages > the upstream sources. > > run the update I suggested and tell us what happened. Please don't misunderstand - I do very much appreciate your help. I'm hesitant to do as suggested and obtain a newer perl-Net-DNS from an external repo because of what seems to be a general opinion that the more you mix external packages the more you risk things like this continuing to happen. So I thought keep as many packages as native CentOS as I can. I'm going to try to figure out where to file a bug I guess, but I have a fear I'll get rebuffed without any help at all.....
