On 2014-11-30 10:48, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 11/29/2014 8:39 PM, John Hardin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 2014, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 29.11.2014 um 23:27 schrieb John Hardin:
However, it is a *warning*, not a fatal error. And it's better than the
rule killing lint and blocking sa-update completely on an install that
uses an older perl
don't get me wrong but this *warning* triggers cron mails and spits
messages in case of every SA related command - that's unacceptable and
in fact worser than without that check
before *only* outdated perl versions where affected, now it hits also
recent Fedora setups working before without any warning and with that
rule included
As I said, I underestimated the reaction to doing that.
if that rule can't work in most environments and not made
conditionally it has to be dropped at all because it has more
drawbacks than benefits
It has already been commented out in my sandbox.
But this effectively means we cannot add new features to SA conditionals
because they might do this to older installs.
No, just release patches to the older versions to Conf.pm and Parser.pm
These are not COMPILED modules so it is easy to patch them.
The people who even notice the warnings are going to be competent enough
to run patch, and for the people who are running SpamAssassin who aren't
competent enough to be able to do that, I doubt they will be noticing log
entries.
Ted
Put a sock in it, Ted. For some, perhaps you, sysadmin is a hobby. For others it
is a necessary pain in the ass. Going off distro for some "patches" is precisely
what we wish to avoid with these long term professional distros. And you're
telling US that we have to risk the stability of the system? "Brown vaguely
stinky soft spludgy material such as emanates from the South end of a North
facing fertile male bovine."
{`,'}
