On 2014-12-02 12:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote:
On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:

On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
 On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

>  On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> >  For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 5010000
>  test so I would stick with just that for now.

 Ok.

https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7107

Just FYI: The nested if example in the patch/doc will still
give a lint warning for perl < 5.10

  if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
    if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
     body  INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18  /(?[ \p{Thai} & \p{Digit} ])/
    endif
  endif

Dec  2 03:53:48.550 [30251] warn: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric in
numeric ge (>=) at (eval 2521) line 2.

ARGH!

Well, I suppose we're back to hoping the distro maintainers accept the
perl_version patch for their LTR release versions of older SA releases.

- IMHO, that single '+' character may be the single most annoying character in
SA for years? :-\

indeed.

Does this show the error?

   if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
     && version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
      body  INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18  /(?[ \p{Thai} & \p{Digit} ])/
   endif

Perhaps the same trick can (almost) work again.

{^_^}

There is no need for the other checks.

if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000) is enough since it
doesn't exist until 3.4.1.

If you are locally using SA trunk and writing your own rules that require
certain perl_versions, you can use the if perl_version >= XYZ logic without 
concern.

regards,
KAM

--
*Kevin A. McGrail*
President

Peregrine Computer Consultants Corporation
3927 Old Lee Highway, Suite 102-C
Fairfax, VA 22030-2422

http://www.pccc.com/

703-359-9700 x50 / 800-823-8402 (Toll-Free)
703-798-0171 (wireless)
kmcgr...@pccc.com <mailto:kmcgr...@pccc.com>


Perhaps test it just the same to see if the basic technique works? I suspect it should. That way it may be a messy way to handle the problem without falling into even nastier messes.

{o.o}

Reply via email to