You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si> on 2009/06/24 17:28:52 UTC
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Sorry for my late response, and bringing the topic back to the list
(with some quotes omitted).
Warren Togami writes:
> Might it be feasible to get 3.3.0 out sometime during the Fedora 12 dev
> cycle? It seems there is maybe 2-3 months. A fresh spamassassin making
> this release might possibly be particularly more important than other
> releases for unnamed reasons...
Justin writes:
> It would be quite possible to do this, given a sufficiently-dedicated
> release guy pushing it. It takes about 2 months to get through
> mass-checks, generate good scores, etc. Unfortunately, I'm out for this
> job, as child #2 is about to be born any day now ;)
>
> BTW in the short term, if ppl want to help 3.3.0 release plans, I suggest
> trying out the SVN trunk code as "dogfood". I've been doing this for the
> last couple of years with very good results; I can't recall the last time
> I had to restart my spamd, for example, or spotted an FP...
I've also been running a fresh 3.3 in production at our site for more
than a year now, mostly because it provides bug fixes and some new
features or workarounds that I need. For example with a Perl upgrade
to 5.8.9 (and later to 5.10.0) on FreeBSD ports the old 3.2.5 just
couldn't survive any longer without crashing due to exceeded stack
size while compiling our set of rules (a perl bug).
I can confirm that 3.3 fares at least as well as 3.2.5, and in
many ways better. I do monitor for possible glitches, but there
just aren't any (new ones that is, that would not also be in 3.2.5).
I may also add that the more recent versions of amavisd-new are
happier with 3.3 than with 3.2.5, as this enables some nice SA
functionality (like SA timing breakdown reports, DKIM checking
of long mail messages).
The trouble with only a handful of sites running the new code is
that not all features are exercised, and not all setups tested.
Then there is a concern that some of the fixes for old bug reports
would still be nice to get into a 3.3 before a release, and some
nice features added/finished. Given the current progress trends
this is unfortunately just stretching time to a release, rising
a feeling that "it just isn't ripe yet". We might consider just
setting our goal/expectations closer to ground, and come out with
what we have.
> I'm pretty sure this won't be achievable in that timeframe if I'm
> driving the release process [...] while I'm busy running after babies ;)
> guys, I can totally provide advice/guidance as to how to go about
> this, if you feel up to it.
>
> basically this wiki page describes the basic idea of how to put
> together a new x.y.0 release:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/ReleasePolicy
>
> the biggest task is working through this:
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/RescoreMassCheck
On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
and then on a mailing list could be a good start.
Mark
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@pccc.com>.
> I'm all for abandoning perl 5.6 with 3.3, although I can accept it one way
> or another. For those in need of perl 5.6 there will still be a 3.2.*.
Please don't say that. I think we'd like to envision the death of old
versions and the support of the new tree only as soon as feasible! I'd
prefer to write documentation on workarounds such as installing an alternate
and newer perl alongside the distributions release, using cpan to install
any necessary modules, and making sure that their install of SA runs with
/usr/local/perl5.8/bin/perl. I've never tried this but the theory seems
more than sound to me.
Regards,
KAM
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si>.
On Tuesday 30 June 2009 01:32:16 Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> BTW, since you're about to push an alpha release...
>
> Did we decide about that yet? :)
Not really, but it seems to be a moment of a sparkling desire
among devels, perhaps too good to be missed, before everybody
leaves for vacation (or babysitting) ;)
> Is the priority bumping of the
> MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
> want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?
>
> See my concerns about carrying around old baggage and a need to support
> Perl 5.6 for important back-ports until the end of the 3.4 live-time, if
> we miss this opportunity.
I'm all for abandoning perl 5.6 with 3.3, although I can accept it one way
or another. For those in need of perl 5.6 there will still be a 3.2.*.
Mark
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
2009/6/30 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:51 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> 2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
>
>> > I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related
>> > stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new
>> > $minor release.
>> >
>> > How much longer do we want to support Perl 5.6.x? [...]
>
>> my guess is it'll be doable.
>
> BTW, since you're about to push an alpha release...
>
> Did we decide about that yet? :) Is the priority bumping of the
> MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
> want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?
We should have a separate bug for that.
note that again, this issue isn't a blocker for the alpha release. we
can do an alpha before deciding that.
(we may have to add a min-version requirement to Makefile.PL for
ExtUtils::MakeMaker though.)
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Sidney Markowitz <si...@sidney.com>.
Karsten Bräckelmann wrote, On 30/6/09 12:27 PM:
> Essentially we would promise actively supporting any issues with Perl
> 5.8, but not necessarily fix it for 5.6, too.
That sounds to me very much like declaring 5.6 as deprecated.
Would that have the right connotations for what both of you have been
talking about?
-- sidney
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@pccc.com>.
> Essentially we would promise actively supporting any issues with Perl
> 5.8, but not necessarily fix it for 5.6, too.
I agree fully with your statements on this!
> It's not about an age-range of obsolete versions being introduced, but
> superseded. Don't think "Perl 5.8 is 7 years old", but "5.6 went old 7
> years ago". How long is that for 5.8?
You make a good point but arbitrary rules are hard with Perl. Perl in
practice is just too good in that modules have made it easier to keep
running for existing installations and security issues that necessitate an
outright upgrade have been minimal. Code-forks are a reason to consider
supporting the next version, though. Code-forks are evil personified.
Regards,
KAM
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 20:01 -0400, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> I would easily vote to require a MakeMaker version if that is the only
> requirement to keep 5.6.X support to move this release forward. Anyone
> supporting a 5.6.x install should be capable of installing requirements that
> don't necessarily require an entirely new version.
As I've said before (and IIRC Mark implied with his comment 2 years ago
in bugzilla), I'm not about dropping the torch for 5.6. But instead, do
not *claim* we'll always support 5.6.
If it works with 5.6 and some updated Perl modules like MakeMaker, good.
If we can fix an issue for 5.6, good. But do not promise we'll fix and
workaround Perl 5.6 issues, maintaining SA 3.3 until the end of 3.4 --
whenever that'll be. Keep the door open to not back-port critical issues
with Perl 5.6 in 2012, when there's no chance to test it with 5.6 on all
platforms without major headaches.
Essentially we would promise actively supporting any issues with Perl
5.8, but not necessarily fix it for 5.6, too.
> However, I don't support an age-range for supporting perl because even 5.8
> is already nearly 7 years old having been release in July 2002.
It's not about an age-range of obsolete versions being introduced, but
superseded. Don't think "Perl 5.8 is 7 years old", but "5.6 went old 7
years ago". How long is that for 5.8?
> > Did we decide about that yet? :) Is the priority bumping of the
> > MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
> > want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?
> >
> > See my concerns about carrying around old baggage and a need to support
> > Perl 5.6 for important back-ports until the end of the 3.4 live-time, if
> > we miss this opportunity.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@pccc.com>.
I would easily vote to require a MakeMaker version if that is the only
requirement to keep 5.6.X support to move this release forward. Anyone
supporting a 5.6.x install should be capable of installing requirements that
don't necessarily require an entirely new version.
However, I don't support an age-range for supporting perl because even 5.8
is already nearly 7 years old having been release in July 2002.
Regards,
KAM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karsten Bräckelmann" <gu...@rudersport.de>
To: <de...@spamassassin.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: 3.3.0 plans
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:51 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> 2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
>
>> > I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related
>> > stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new
>> > $minor release.
>> >
>> > How much longer do we want to support Perl 5.6.x? [...]
>
>> my guess is it'll be doable.
>
> BTW, since you're about to push an alpha release...
>
> Did we decide about that yet? :) Is the priority bumping of the
> MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
> want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?
>
> See my concerns about carrying around old baggage and a need to support
> Perl 5.6 for important back-ports until the end of the 3.4 live-time, if
> we miss this opportunity.
>
>
> --
> char
> *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
> main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8?
> c<<=1:
> (c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){
> putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
>
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 09:51 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> 2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
> > I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related
> > stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new
> > $minor release.
> >
> > How much longer do we want to support Perl 5.6.x? [...]
> my guess is it'll be doable.
BTW, since you're about to push an alpha release...
Did we decide about that yet? :) Is the priority bumping of the
MakeMaker bug an implicit death sentence for Perl 5.6 support, or do we
want a separate bug to track bumping requirements in two places?
See my concerns about carrying around old baggage and a need to support
Perl 5.6 for important back-ports until the end of the 3.4 live-time, if
we miss this opportunity.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
2009/6/25 Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>:
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 23:00 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>> is there anything else that we should sort out before an alpha is viable?
>
> I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related
> stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new
> $minor release.
>
> How much longer do we want to support Perl 5.6.x? There are comments in
> bugzilla from years ago, that there's virtually no system without Perl
> 5.8.x for years (counting from the comment, not today).
>
> I'd seriously prefer a "drop support for < Perl 5.8.1" in a separate
> thread, though.
I've done that -- and on the users@ list, since a lot of potential
commenters don't read dev@. (I've also cc'd my blog to catch the
Planet Perl readers.)
my guess is it'll be doable.
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Karsten Bräckelmann <gu...@rudersport.de>.
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 23:00 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> is there anything else that we should sort out before an alpha is viable?
I believe re-thinking the minimum supported Perl version and related
stuff like screwing MakeMaker would be a *really* good target for a new
$minor release.
How much longer do we want to support Perl 5.6.x? There are comments in
bugzilla from years ago, that there's virtually no system without Perl
5.8.x for years (counting from the comment, not today).
I'd seriously prefer a "drop support for < Perl 5.8.1" in a separate
thread, though.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 22:24, Mark Martinec<Ma...@ijs.si> wrote:
> Justin wrote:
>
>> > Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?
>>
>> ok ok. good point ;)
>>
>> Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a
>> few of those P1s and P2s. Wednesday evening...
>
> Wednesday evening is good (or even Thursday),
> I could announce its availability on Friday at a German mail server conference
> http://www.heinlein-support.de/web/akademie/mailserver-konferenz-2009/
great! we'll need to get 3 +1's from committers to release it though ;) given
that you and I will be 2 of those, hopefully, I don't think this will
be a problem.
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si>.
Justin wrote:
> > Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?
>
> ok ok. good point ;)
>
> Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a
> few of those P1s and P2s. Wednesday evening...
Wednesday evening is good (or even Thursday),
I could announce its availability on Friday at a German mail server conference
http://www.heinlein-support.de/web/akademie/mailserver-konferenz-2009/
Mark
Re: 3.3.0-alpha1 working for anyone?
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
> Checking if your kit is complete...
> Looks good
> 'ENABLE_SSL' is not a known MakeMaker parameter name.
> 'SYSCONFDIR' is not a known MakeMaker parameter name.
> Writing Makefile for Mail::SpamAssassin
> Makefile written by ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.42
> + /usr/bin/make 'OPTIMIZE=-O2 -g' -j3
>
> spamassassin-3.2.5 does not complain about ENABLE_SSL or SYSCONFDIR in
> MakeMaker. What changed? Do we need to adapt?
no, that should be fine. (we should probably fix it ;)
btw, this should work --
perl Makefile.PL PREFIX=/tmp/sa
make
make install
/tmp/sa/bin/sa-update
does that work for you? even without an /etc/mail/spamassassin or
/usr/share/spamassassin? if so it's definitely the .spec file IMO.
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans, what next?
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 12:17, Justin Mason<jm...@jmason.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:51, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/15/2009 06:41 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do we have enough variety of users submitting nightly mass check data?
>>>
>>> we still need some more, I think.
>>>
>>> MSECS SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME WHO/AGE
>>> 0.00000 46.7930 0.0431 0.999 0.96 0.01 T_CN_URL
>>> 0.00000 1.3699 0.0000 1.000 0.46 0.01 T_CN_URL bb-jhardin
>>> 0.00000 68.2628 0.0000 1.000 0.99 0.01 T_CN_URL bb-jm
>>> 0.00000 44.9004 0.0132 1.000 0.99 0.01 T_CN_URL dos
>>> 0.00000 19.0590 0.0160 0.999 0.94 0.01 T_CN_URL jm
>>> 0.00000 2.7273 0.0000 1.000 0.75 0.01 T_CN_URL wtogami
>>> 0.00000 5.6111 0.2874 0.951 0.66 0.01 T_CN_URL zmi
>>>
>>
>> What do each of these columns mean?
>
> see http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MassCheck
uh, actually, http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/HitFrequencies
--
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans, what next?
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 11:51, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/15/2009 06:41 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>
>>> Do we have enough variety of users submitting nightly mass check data?
>>
>> we still need some more, I think.
>>
>> MSECS SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME WHO/AGE
>> 0.00000 46.7930 0.0431 0.999 0.96 0.01 T_CN_URL
>> 0.00000 1.3699 0.0000 1.000 0.46 0.01 T_CN_URL bb-jhardin
>> 0.00000 68.2628 0.0000 1.000 0.99 0.01 T_CN_URL bb-jm
>> 0.00000 44.9004 0.0132 1.000 0.99 0.01 T_CN_URL dos
>> 0.00000 19.0590 0.0160 0.999 0.94 0.01 T_CN_URL jm
>> 0.00000 2.7273 0.0000 1.000 0.75 0.01 T_CN_URL wtogami
>> 0.00000 5.6111 0.2874 0.951 0.66 0.01 T_CN_URL zmi
>>
>
> What do each of these columns mean?
see http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/MassCheck . But the only bit
that's relevant to this discussion is the "WHO" part -- ie those
contributor accounts at the end of each line.
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans, what next?
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/15/2009 06:41 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>> Do we have enough variety of users submitting nightly mass check data?
>
> we still need some more, I think.
>
> MSECS SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME WHO/AGE
> 0.00000 46.7930 0.0431 0.999 0.96 0.01 T_CN_URL
> 0.00000 1.3699 0.0000 1.000 0.46 0.01 T_CN_URL bb-jhardin
> 0.00000 68.2628 0.0000 1.000 0.99 0.01 T_CN_URL bb-jm
> 0.00000 44.9004 0.0132 1.000 0.99 0.01 T_CN_URL dos
> 0.00000 19.0590 0.0160 0.999 0.94 0.01 T_CN_URL jm
> 0.00000 2.7273 0.0000 1.000 0.75 0.01 T_CN_URL wtogami
> 0.00000 5.6111 0.2874 0.951 0.66 0.01 T_CN_URL zmi
>
What do each of these columns mean?
Warren
Re: 3.3.0 plans, what next?
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 04:14, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Thanks for kicking this off. My RPM packages with packaged rules seem to be
> working well on RHEL4, RHEL5 and Fedora 10+.
excellent!
> Do we have enough variety of users submitting nightly mass check data?
we still need some more, I think.
MSECS SPAM% HAM% S/O RANK SCORE NAME WHO/AGE
0.00000 46.7930 0.0431 0.999 0.96 0.01 T_CN_URL
0.00000 1.3699 0.0000 1.000 0.46 0.01 T_CN_URL bb-jhardin
0.00000 68.2628 0.0000 1.000 0.99 0.01 T_CN_URL bb-jm
0.00000 44.9004 0.0132 1.000 0.99 0.01 T_CN_URL dos
0.00000 19.0590 0.0160 0.999 0.94 0.01 T_CN_URL jm
0.00000 2.7273 0.0000 1.000 0.75 0.01 T_CN_URL wtogami
0.00000 5.6111 0.2874 0.951 0.66 0.01 T_CN_URL zmi
That's not bad, but it could be better. In numbers, the nonspam is
overwhelmingly coming from my corpus and Daryl's (which has some FPs,
I need to mail those on to you D).
> What remains to be fixed before 3.3.0?
can you see this?
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamed&namedcmd=33bugs
if not, try this:
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=&target_milestone=3.3.0&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&status_whiteboard_type=allwordssubstr&status_whiteboard=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&cmdtype=doit&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time&known_name=33bugs&query_based_on=33bugs&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=
very little needs to be done. Right now I'm thinking just the P1s and P2s:
6143 nor P1 NEW Rule2XSBody segfaults due to rule
containing NUL chars
6144 blo P1 NEW write changes list for 3.3.0 release
6155 blo P1 NEW generate new scores for 3.3.0 release
4949 nor P2 NEW spamd shutting down when unable to fork new processes
6003 nor P2 NEW whitelist_from_rcvd propagates to other users
6132 enh P2 REOP FreeMail plugin
6150 maj P2 REOP spamd fails: /usr/bin/spamd line 2504
> What is a theoretical schedule for 3.3.0?
I haven't come up with real dates, but I think we could have this
released (ie out of beta) in 2 months.
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans, what next?
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
Thanks for kicking this off. My RPM packages with packaged rules seem
to be working well on RHEL4, RHEL5 and Fedora 10+.
Do we have enough variety of users submitting nightly mass check data?
What remains to be fixed before 3.3.0?
What is a theoretical schedule for 3.3.0?
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:07, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/07/2009 04:57 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 23:36, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/06/2009 06:12 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>>
>>>> crap, you're right. :(
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6147
>>>>
>>>> there's a patch there that appears to fix it. does it work for you?
>>>>
>>>> --j.
>>>
>>> A patch only for MANIFEST* going to copy *.pre files from the tarball,
>>> when
>>> the tarball lacks those files?
>>>
>>> It seems MANIFEST* only effects what goes from the SCM into tarball.
>>
>> yep, you'd have to rebuild the tarball.
>>
>>> Anyhow, I'm adding the *.pre files manually for the initial package.
>>
>> ok
>
> But now I'm unable to push this packaged due to the tainting issue. Is this
> is in fact a perl bug, not spamassassin's fault? This is the latest version
> of upstream perl.
I haven't looked into it, but iirc, it's a perl bug. (at least a bug
in a module bundled with perl.) We trigger it due to our extensive
use of -T (taint mode). As Mark notes, we may be able to work around
it in our code though.
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/07/2009 04:57 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 23:36, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2009 06:12 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>> crap, you're right. :(
>>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6147
>>>
>>> there's a patch there that appears to fix it. does it work for you?
>>>
>>> --j.
>> A patch only for MANIFEST* going to copy *.pre files from the tarball, when
>> the tarball lacks those files?
>>
>> It seems MANIFEST* only effects what goes from the SCM into tarball.
>
> yep, you'd have to rebuild the tarball.
>
>> Anyhow, I'm adding the *.pre files manually for the initial package.
>
> ok
But now I'm unable to push this packaged due to the tainting issue. Is
this is in fact a perl bug, not spamassassin's fault? This is the
latest version of upstream perl.
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 23:36, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/06/2009 06:12 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>
>> crap, you're right. :(
>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6147
>>
>> there's a patch there that appears to fix it. does it work for you?
>>
>> --j.
>
> A patch only for MANIFEST* going to copy *.pre files from the tarball, when
> the tarball lacks those files?
>
> It seems MANIFEST* only effects what goes from the SCM into tarball.
yep, you'd have to rebuild the tarball.
> Anyhow, I'm adding the *.pre files manually for the initial package.
ok
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/06/2009 06:12 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>
> crap, you're right. :(
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6147
>
> there's a patch there that appears to fix it. does it work for you?
>
> --j.
A patch only for MANIFEST* going to copy *.pre files from the tarball,
when the tarball lacks those files?
It seems MANIFEST* only effects what goes from the SCM into tarball.
Anyhow, I'm adding the *.pre files manually for the initial package.
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 22:40, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/06/2009 05:32 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 21:05, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/06/2009 04:00 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Warren,
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing
>>>>>> list:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%
>>>>>> 3C6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064b40@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm having trouble getting it to run on Fedora 11.
>>>>>
>>>>> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]#
>>>>> sa-update config: no configuration text or files found!
>>>>> do you need to run 'sa-update'?
>>>>> check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_main': cannot scan!
>>>>> Check the necessary '.pre' files are in the config directory.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and? Did you run sa-update???
>>>>
>>>> The 3.3 no longer comes with rules in the same package.
>>>> These must be installed separately with 'sa-update',
>>>> which either fetches them from the net, or can install
>>>> them from a tar - which is in the same directory
>>>> as 3.3.0-alpha1 is.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>
>>> sa-update is failing due to the lack of the /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.pre
>>> files.
>>>
>>
>> this sounds like our RPM spec file is buggy -- does it work if
>> installed from the tgz?
>>
>> --j.
>
> This isn't the upstream RPM spec file. This is Fedora's spec file.
>
> How can it copy the *.pre files into the RPM if the *.pre files do not exist
> in the tarball's rules/ directory?
crap, you're right. :(
https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6147
there's a patch there that appears to fix it. does it work for you?
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/06/2009 05:32 PM, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 21:05, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2009 04:00 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
>>> Warren,
>>>
>>>> On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>>>> The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing
>>>>> list:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%
>>>>> 3C6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064b40@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>> I'm having trouble getting it to run on Fedora 11.
>>>>
>>>> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]#
>>>> sa-update config: no configuration text or files found!
>>>> do you need to run 'sa-update'?
>>>> check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_main': cannot scan!
>>>> Check the necessary '.pre' files are in the config directory.
>>> Yes, and? Did you run sa-update???
>>>
>>> The 3.3 no longer comes with rules in the same package.
>>> These must be installed separately with 'sa-update',
>>> which either fetches them from the net, or can install
>>> them from a tar - which is in the same directory
>>> as 3.3.0-alpha1 is.
>>>
>>> Mark
>> sa-update is failing due to the lack of the /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.pre
>> files.
>>
>
> this sounds like our RPM spec file is buggy -- does it work if
> installed from the tgz?
>
> --j.
This isn't the upstream RPM spec file. This is Fedora's spec file.
How can it copy the *.pre files into the RPM if the *.pre files do not
exist in the tarball's rules/ directory?
Warren
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 21:05, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/06/2009 04:00 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
>>
>> Warren,
>>
>>> On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing
>>>> list:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%
>>>> 3C6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064b40@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>> I'm having trouble getting it to run on Fedora 11.
>>>
>>> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]#
>>> sa-update config: no configuration text or files found!
>>> do you need to run 'sa-update'?
>>> check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_main': cannot scan!
>>> Check the necessary '.pre' files are in the config directory.
>>
>> Yes, and? Did you run sa-update???
>>
>> The 3.3 no longer comes with rules in the same package.
>> These must be installed separately with 'sa-update',
>> which either fetches them from the net, or can install
>> them from a tar - which is in the same directory
>> as 3.3.0-alpha1 is.
>>
>> Mark
>
> sa-update is failing due to the lack of the /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.pre
> files.
>
this sounds like our RPM spec file is buggy -- does it work if
installed from the tgz?
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/06/2009 04:00 PM, Mark Martinec wrote:
> Warren,
>
>> On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>> The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing
>>> list:
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%
>>> 3C6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064b40@mail.gmail.com%3E
>> I'm having trouble getting it to run on Fedora 11.
>>
>> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]#
>> sa-update config: no configuration text or files found!
>> do you need to run 'sa-update'?
>> check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_main': cannot scan!
>> Check the necessary '.pre' files are in the config directory.
>
> Yes, and? Did you run sa-update???
>
> The 3.3 no longer comes with rules in the same package.
> These must be installed separately with 'sa-update',
> which either fetches them from the net, or can install
> them from a tar - which is in the same directory
> as 3.3.0-alpha1 is.
>
> Mark
sa-update is failing due to the lack of the /etc/mail/spamassassin/*.pre
files.
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Mark Martinec <Ma...@ijs.si>.
Warren,
> On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> > The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing
> > list:
> >
> > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%
> >3C6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064b40@mail.gmail.com%3E
>
> I'm having trouble getting it to run on Fedora 11.
>
> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]#
> sa-update config: no configuration text or files found!
> do you need to run 'sa-update'?
> check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_main': cannot scan!
> Check the necessary '.pre' files are in the config directory.
Yes, and? Did you run sa-update???
The 3.3 no longer comes with rules in the same package.
These must be installed separately with 'sa-update',
which either fetches them from the net, or can install
them from a tar - which is in the same directory
as 3.3.0-alpha1 is.
Mark
Re: 3.3.0-alpha1 working for anyone?
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/06/2009 03:59 PM, Michael Parker wrote:
>>
>> spamassassin-3.2.5 rules/ contains the *.pre files.
>> spamassassin-3.3.0-alpha1 rules/ is missing *.pre files.
>>
>> Was this intentional?
>
> Yes. 3.3 requires that you run sa-update after installation to pick up
> the latest rules release. I believe this is documented.
>
> For packagers such as yourself, you'll probably want to have a separate
> rules package for that initial install.
>
[root@newcaprica spamassassin]# sa-update
config: no configuration text or files found! do you need to run
'sa-update'?
check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_main': cannot scan!
Check the necessary '.pre' files are in the config directory.
Isn't this a chicken and egg problem then?
Warren
Re: 3.3.0-alpha1 working for anyone?
Posted by Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 6, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 07/06/2009 03:59 PM, Michael Parker wrote:
>> Yes. 3.3 requires that you run sa-update after installation to pick
>> up
>> the latest rules release. I believe this is documented.
>>
>> For packagers such as yourself, you'll probably want to have a
>> separate
>> rules package for that initial install.
>>
>> Michael
>
> It appears that we were overzealous in removing the the rules from
> the tarball? sa-update does not work all without the *.pre files.
> Furthermore package upgrades expect the *.pre files to be installed
> in the newer version of the package as they need to exist as config
> files. They are gone from the alpha1 tarball.
>
> Shouldn't the *.pre files be re-added to the tarball rules/
> directory, without the accompanying rules? I added them to my
> tarball and after you install the resulting RPM binary package, sa-
> update works.
>
>
Perhaps. Sounds like a bug, can you please file one.
Thanks
Michael
Re: 3.3.0-alpha1 working for anyone?
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/06/2009 03:59 PM, Michael Parker wrote:
> Yes. 3.3 requires that you run sa-update after installation to pick up
> the latest rules release. I believe this is documented.
>
> For packagers such as yourself, you'll probably want to have a separate
> rules package for that initial install.
>
> Michael
It appears that we were overzealous in removing the the rules from the
tarball? sa-update does not work all without the *.pre files.
Furthermore package upgrades expect the *.pre files to be installed in
the newer version of the package as they need to exist as config files.
They are gone from the alpha1 tarball.
Shouldn't the *.pre files be re-added to the tarball rules/ directory,
without the accompanying rules? I added them to my tarball and after
you install the resulting RPM binary package, sa-update works.
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Re: 3.3.0-alpha1 working for anyone?
Posted by Michael Parker <pa...@pobox.com>.
On Jul 6, 2009, at 2:52 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 07/06/2009 03:13 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
>> On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>>> The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users
>>> mailing
>>> list:
>>>
>>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%3C6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064b40@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>>
>>
>> I'm having trouble getting it to run on Fedora 11.
>>
>> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]# sa-update
>> config: no configuration text or files found! do you need to run
>> 'sa-update'?
>> check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_main': cannot scan!
>> Check the necessary '.pre' files are in the config directory.
>>
>> *** spamassassin-3.2.5 ***
>>
>> [root@newcaprica ~]# cd /etc/mail/spamassassin/
>> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]# ls
>> init.pre local.cf sa-update-keys spamassassin-default.rc
>> spamassassin-helper.sh spamassassin-spamc.rc v310.pre v312.pre
>> v320.pre
>>
>> *** spamassassin-3.3.0-alpha1 ***
>>
>> [root@newcaprica ~]# cd /etc/mail/spamassassin/
>> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]# ls
>> local.cf sa-update-keys spamassassin-default.rc spamassassin-
>> helper.sh
>> spamassassin-spamc.rc
>>
>> All of the *.pre files are no longer being installed into our RPM. It
>> seems to pass the test suite though.
>>
>
> spamassassin-3.2.5 rules/ contains the *.pre files.
> spamassassin-3.3.0-alpha1 rules/ is missing *.pre files.
>
> Was this intentional?
Yes. 3.3 requires that you run sa-update after installation to pick
up the latest rules release. I believe this is documented.
For packagers such as yourself, you'll probably want to have a
separate rules package for that initial install.
Michael
>
>
> Is 3.3.0-alpha1 working for anybody?
>
> Possibly a separate issue this is the %build section from our
> spamassassin.spec file.
>
> %build
> CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"; export CFLAGS
> %{__perl} Makefile.PL PREFIX=%{_prefix} SYSCONFDIR=%{_sysconfdir}
> DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT < /dev/null
> %{__make}
>
> Checking if your kit is complete...
> Looks good
> 'ENABLE_SSL' is not a known MakeMaker parameter name.
> 'SYSCONFDIR' is not a known MakeMaker parameter name.
> Writing Makefile for Mail::SpamAssassin
> Makefile written by ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.42
> + /usr/bin/make 'OPTIMIZE=-O2 -g' -j3
>
> spamassassin-3.2.5 does not complain about ENABLE_SSL or SYSCONFDIR
> in MakeMaker. What changed? Do we need to adapt?
>
> Warren Togami
> wtogami@redhat.com
3.3.0-alpha1 working for anyone?
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/06/2009 03:13 PM, Warren Togami wrote:
> On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
>> The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing
>> list:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%3C6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064b40@mail.gmail.com%3E
>>
>
> I'm having trouble getting it to run on Fedora 11.
>
> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]# sa-update
> config: no configuration text or files found! do you need to run
> 'sa-update'?
> check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_main': cannot scan!
> Check the necessary '.pre' files are in the config directory.
>
> *** spamassassin-3.2.5 ***
>
> [root@newcaprica ~]# cd /etc/mail/spamassassin/
> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]# ls
> init.pre local.cf sa-update-keys spamassassin-default.rc
> spamassassin-helper.sh spamassassin-spamc.rc v310.pre v312.pre v320.pre
>
> *** spamassassin-3.3.0-alpha1 ***
>
> [root@newcaprica ~]# cd /etc/mail/spamassassin/
> [root@newcaprica spamassassin]# ls
> local.cf sa-update-keys spamassassin-default.rc spamassassin-helper.sh
> spamassassin-spamc.rc
>
> All of the *.pre files are no longer being installed into our RPM. It
> seems to pass the test suite though.
>
spamassassin-3.2.5 rules/ contains the *.pre files.
spamassassin-3.3.0-alpha1 rules/ is missing *.pre files.
Was this intentional?
Is 3.3.0-alpha1 working for anybody?
Possibly a separate issue this is the %build section from our
spamassassin.spec file.
%build
CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"; export CFLAGS
%{__perl} Makefile.PL PREFIX=%{_prefix} SYSCONFDIR=%{_sysconfdir}
DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT < /dev/null
%{__make}
Checking if your kit is complete...
Looks good
'ENABLE_SSL' is not a known MakeMaker parameter name.
'SYSCONFDIR' is not a known MakeMaker parameter name.
Writing Makefile for Mail::SpamAssassin
Makefile written by ExtUtils::MakeMaker 6.42
+ /usr/bin/make 'OPTIMIZE=-O2 -g' -j3
spamassassin-3.2.5 does not complain about ENABLE_SSL or SYSCONFDIR in
MakeMaker. What changed? Do we need to adapt?
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 07/03/2009 10:37 PM, Matt Kettler wrote:
> The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing list:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%3C6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064b40@mail.gmail.com%3E
I'm having trouble getting it to run on Fedora 11.
[root@newcaprica spamassassin]# sa-update
config: no configuration text or files found! do you need to run
'sa-update'?
check: no loaded plugin implements 'check_main': cannot scan!
Check the necessary '.pre' files are in the config directory.
*** spamassassin-3.2.5 ***
[root@newcaprica ~]# cd /etc/mail/spamassassin/
[root@newcaprica spamassassin]# ls
init.pre local.cf sa-update-keys spamassassin-default.rc
spamassassin-helper.sh spamassassin-spamc.rc v310.pre v312.pre v320.pre
*** spamassassin-3.3.0-alpha1 ***
[root@newcaprica ~]# cd /etc/mail/spamassassin/
[root@newcaprica spamassassin]# ls
local.cf sa-update-keys spamassassin-default.rc
spamassassin-helper.sh spamassassin-spamc.rc
All of the *.pre files are no longer being installed into our RPM. It
seems to pass the test suite though.
All tests successful.
Files=151, Tests=1938, 173 wallclock secs ( 1.05 usr 0.39 sys + 67.07
cusr 13.81 csys = 82.32 CPU)
Result: PASS
Still looking...
Warren Togami
wtogami@redhat.com
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Matt Kettler <mk...@verizon.net>.
Warren Togami wrote:
> On 06/29/2009 11:59 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 16:27, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>>> How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week?
>>>>
>>> Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?
>>
>> ok ok. good point ;)
>>
>> Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a
>> few of those P1s and P2s. Wednesday evening...
>>
>> --j.
>
> How is this going?
>
> Warren
>
>
The public alpha release was announced yesterday on the users mailing list:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/200907.mbox/%3C6c399e450907021522k1678f0ffn454a1e670f064b40@mail.gmail.com%3E
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 06/29/2009 11:59 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 16:27, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>> How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week?
>>>
>> Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?
>
> ok ok. good point ;)
>
> Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a
> few of those P1s and P2s. Wednesday evening...
>
> --j.
How is this going?
Warren
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 16:27, Warren Togami<wt...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
>>
>> How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week?
>>
>
> Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?
ok ok. good point ;)
Let's give it 3 days to garner some comments and possibly close out a
few of those P1s and P2s. Wednesday evening...
--j.
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Warren Togami <wt...@redhat.com>.
On 06/29/2009 07:44 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
> How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week?
>
Why end of the week if nothing on the list is blockers?
Warren
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
ok! Here's what I see in bugzilla right now:
ID Sev Pri OS Assignee Status Resolution Summary
6077 maj P1 All dev@spamassassin.apache.org NEW fix failing tests
6131 maj P1 All dev@spamassassin.apache.org NEW Makefile.PL is
doing evil things to detect DESTDIR
6139 maj P1 All dev@spamassassin.apache.org NEW remove
"rulesrc" external from SVN tree
5553 nor P1 All dev@spamassassin.apache.org ASSI
MIME_BASE64_TEXT does not handle charset properly
5871 enh P1 All dev@spamassassin.apache.org REOP need docs for
new '--filter-retries' spamc switch
[so those are the 5 P1s. these are all things that should be done
before a release, but none of them are blockers IMO.]
4949 nor P2 Free dev@spamassassin.apache.org NEW spamd shutting
down when unable to fork new processes
5591 nor P2 Sola dev@spamassassin.apache.org NEW make test
fails at spamd_hup test on Solaris 9, 10
6132 enh P2 All dev@spamassassin.apache.org REOP FreeMail plugin
[would be nice to get done but again not blockers.]
everything else on the 3.3.0 milestone can be pushed off if nobody
gets the tuits to do them.
I think we could conceivably start the 3.3.0 release process soon....
paging Warren ;)
How's about I cut an alpha at the end of this week?
--j.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 23:00, Justin Mason<jm...@jmason.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:37, Justin Mason<jm...@jmason.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:21, Theo Van Dinter<fe...@kluge.net> wrote:
>>> fwiw, the process used to be:
>>> - beta releases to get things stabilized
>>> - use a beta release to do mass-check runs
>>> - generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn
>>
>> I think we may be able to simplify that, now that Daryl's system is
>> generating scores weekly...
>>
>> Also one hard part that we need to do is finish the "no rules in main
>> tarball" work item.
>
> which I've just done ;)
>
> is there anything else that we should sort out before an alpha is viable?
>
> --j.
>
>>> - rc releases to get wider testing w/ scores
>>> - release after rc appear to work
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:37, Justin Mason<jm...@jmason.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:21, Theo Van Dinter<fe...@kluge.net> wrote:
>> fwiw, the process used to be:
>> - beta releases to get things stabilized
>> - use a beta release to do mass-check runs
>> - generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn
>
> I think we may be able to simplify that, now that Daryl's system is
> generating scores weekly...
>
> Also one hard part that we need to do is finish the "no rules in main
> tarball" work item.
which I've just done ;)
is there anything else that we should sort out before an alpha is viable?
--j.
>> - rc releases to get wider testing w/ scores
>> - release after rc appear to work
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount<qu...@zimbra.com> wrote:
>>> --On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec
>>> <Ma...@ijs.si> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
>>>> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
>>>> a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
>>>> so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
>>>> trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
>>>> I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
>>>> checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
>>>> and then on a mailing list could be a good start.
>>>
>>> Maybe a public alpha or beta release? So folks know it isn't official, but
>>> can start testing it out.
>>>
>>> --Quanah
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Quanah Gibson-Mount
>>> Principal Software Engineer
>>> Zimbra, Inc
>>> --------------------
>>> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 21:21, Theo Van Dinter<fe...@kluge.net> wrote:
> fwiw, the process used to be:
> - beta releases to get things stabilized
> - use a beta release to do mass-check runs
> - generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn
I think we may be able to simplify that, now that Daryl's system is
generating scores weekly...
Also one hard part that we need to do is finish the "no rules in main
tarball" work item.
> - rc releases to get wider testing w/ scores
> - release after rc appear to work
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount<qu...@zimbra.com> wrote:
>> --On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec
>> <Ma...@ijs.si> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
>>> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
>>> a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
>>> so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
>>>
>>> I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
>>> trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
>>> I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
>>> checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
>>> and then on a mailing list could be a good start.
>>
>> Maybe a public alpha or beta release? So folks know it isn't official, but
>> can start testing it out.
>>
>> --Quanah
>>
>> --
>>
>> Quanah Gibson-Mount
>> Principal Software Engineer
>> Zimbra, Inc
>> --------------------
>> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
>>
>
>
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>.
fwiw, the process used to be:
- beta releases to get things stabilized
- use a beta release to do mass-check runs
- generate scores with mass-check data and submit to svn
- rc releases to get wider testing w/ scores
- release after rc appear to work
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount<qu...@zimbra.com> wrote:
> --On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec
> <Ma...@ijs.si> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
>> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
>> a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
>> so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
>>
>> I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
>> trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
>> I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
>> checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
>> and then on a mailing list could be a good start.
>
> Maybe a public alpha or beta release? So folks know it isn't official, but
> can start testing it out.
>
> --Quanah
>
> --
>
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Principal Software Engineer
> Zimbra, Inc
> --------------------
> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
>
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org>.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 19:11, Quanah Gibson-Mount<qu...@zimbra.com> wrote:
> --On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec
> <Ma...@ijs.si> wrote:
>
>> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
>> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
>> a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
>> so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
>>
>> I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
>> trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
>> I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
>> checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
>> and then on a mailing list could be a good start.
>
> Maybe a public alpha or beta release? So folks know it isn't official, but
> can start testing it out.
A public alpha might be a good option. The main stuff we need to do
after that would be procedural changes and score generation.
--j.
> --Quanah
>
> --
>
> Quanah Gibson-Mount
> Principal Software Engineer
> Zimbra, Inc
> --------------------
> Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
>
>
Re: 3.3.0 plans
Posted by Quanah Gibson-Mount <qu...@zimbra.com>.
--On Wednesday, June 24, 2009 5:28 PM +0200 Mark Martinec
<Ma...@ijs.si> wrote:
> On my part I've spent less time lately on SpamAssassin then
> I would like. Getting the amavis release out, preparing for
> a conference, and then there will be a vacation time for me,
> so I won't be of much help until the end of July.
>
> I wonder if there's anything we could do without too much
> trouble to let more people start using the 3.3 code from CVS.
> I suppose there are still nightly tarball builds? (I haven't
> checked). Perhaps just giving an encouraging hint every now
> and then on a mailing list could be a good start.
Maybe a public alpha or beta release? So folks know it isn't official, but
can start testing it out.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra, Inc
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration