On 2014-11-30 12:19, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
On 11/30/2014 11:17 AM, jdow wrote:
Ted, I simply do not feel well enough just now to be nice. I reiterate
my prior observation about vaguely stinky and spludgy material such as
emanates from the South end of North facing fertile male bovines.
I have enough headaches with pure distro modules. I really REALLY
*R*E*A*L*L*Y* do not want to go through the nonsense again with off
distro modules. I ran SA off distro for a few years. I got tired of it.
Too much stuff was starting to break.
In this situation I simply don't see that the patch recommendation
was all that big of a deal. It's a patch that's already going to be included in
the next version of SA, so if you really are running a
complete "on-distro" system and you are running updates on it, then
sooner or later most distro maintainers are going to include it and you will get
it the next time you run updates on your system.
Sorry if I am abusive - no - I'm not sorry. I feel like warmed over poo
with this blasted headcold. I DO NOT NEED THIS SORT OF AGGRAVATION JUST
NOW PEEING ON ME FROM MY LOGS.
Nobody does, but...hypothetically, how many people screaming about this
"mistake" paid any money to the guy who created this program?
I save my nastiest screaming for companies like Microsoft who not only
periodically screw me over but they make me pay them to do it!!!
Ted
Linux does not provide adequate facilities for some of the work I do. So I have
SL6.5 and Win 7 running, both. So far one Windows update has cost a lot of
people some sincere heartburn, fortunately not me. In that time I've been
RedHatted at least once. It seems I had to upgrade to SL6.6 in order to keep
receiving updates because I have Octave on the system as a tool for digital
filter work. I've also had nVidia make a bloody mess of the system as well.
(Nouveau at the time the system was put on line simply did not work at all
adequately.) So the score is pretty much 3 Linux pains in the ass for 1 Windows
potential pain in the ass. That said, I do NOT trust Windows bare to the
Internet. I do (mostly) trust Linux in that role. So I run both. I pick the OS
of choice based on which does the job I need better with less effort on my part.
I am slowing down as I get into my eighth decade now. So extra efforts forced
upon me by sloppy thought processes or arrogance really twist my teat and I get
angry.
My one happy thought in terms of one Ted Mittelstaedt is that he, too, will get
old and suffer, too. And if he does not mature somewhat he will suffer worse
than me. Somehow that thought warms my nasty cold little heart.
{^_^}
{`,'}
On 2014-11-30 11:07, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
Now now, be nice!
This issue affects ANY piece of OSS software that has multiple
dependencies.
SpamAssassin has HUNDREDS of dependencies on different Perl modules.
Using your nasty logic if the author of Perl::Date or whatever
decided to make a change that broke SA than it's our tough luck, eh?
The authors of any OSS project - like SA, like any of the modules that SA
depends on - that depends on OTHER OSS
projects need to navigate this dependency hell with same guiding
principle that is used for Sendmail and other OSS projects:
Be liberal in what you accept, conservative in what you send.
Meaning this - you write a package like SA, or a package like
Perl::Date, that
has published interfaces and API's, you need to do your best to maintain
consistency, and you need to be accepting
of changes that others make to the best of your ability.
If the SA authors want to add bells and whistles to a functioning
design that
require certain newer versions of dependent programs that's fine - but
they need
to install logic in those bells and whistles that either makes them
backwards
compatible with older dependent programs or turns those bells and
whistles off.
If it turns out that an older released SA has a design flaw that makes
that
impossible to do then patches need to be released for those older
versions.
There's no need to take a scorched Earth My way or the highway approach.
Ted
On 11/30/2014 10:50 AM, Dave Pooser wrote:
On 11/30/14 12:34 PM, "Paul R. Ganci"<ga...@nurdog.com> wrote:
So just so I understand something is it expected that those of us with
RHEL 5.11 and RHEL 6.6 servers are expected to upgrade our perl
versions
just for spamassassin's sa-update? The whole idea of running servers
with those versions of server software is for stability.
Yep. And the whole point of running SpamAssassin with sa-update is for
flexibility and agility. The two goals are necessarily in conflict.
So...
Looks like you have a few options:
1) Don't run SA on RHEL
2) Run SA on RHEL but turn off sa-update and sacrifice automated
reaction
to new spam in the interest of keeping your system static
3) Run SA on RHEL but upgrade perl and SpamAssassin using
third-party-packages or update from source
4) Run SA on RHEL with system perl and system SpamAssassin, run
sa-update
with output redirected to /dev/null, and write your own monitoring
script
to tell you if sa-update broke spamd
5) Run SA in some kind of container or VM so you can optimize for
spamassassin without tainting the purity of your RHEL install
