You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Warren Togami <wt...@gmail.com> on 2010/03/22 03:13:10 UTC
spamassassin-3.3.1 RPM packages for Fedora and RHEL5
http://wtogami.livejournal.com/34108.html
Please see my blog post here for official, tested RPM packages for Fedora
and RHEL5.
I highly recommend NOT building the RPM package from the spec file contained
within the spamassassin tarball. It has never been tested to work on Fedora
or Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Warren Togami
wtogami@fedoraproject.org
Re: spamassassin-3.3.1 RPM packages for Fedora and RHEL5
Posted by Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>.
Bill Landry wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:37:12 -0700:
> But Warren certainly did in his original post.
If you didn't reply to me I would ask you to reply to the message you reply
to instead and don't quote me ;-)
And BTW, he didn't say
> anything about CentOS is his original post, but that didn't stop you from
> replying.
I suggest you read his post and then mine again, the first sentence would
suffice.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Re: spamassassin-3.3.1 RPM packages for Fedora and RHEL5
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
On Mon, March 22, 2010 10:31 am, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Bill Landry wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:01:26 -0700:
>
>> I tried it with Fedora 12
>
> I didn't say anything about Fedora.
But Warren certainly did in his original post. And BTW, he didn't say
anything about CentOS is his original post, but that didn't stop you from
replying. My response was to confirm Warren's original statements.
Bill
Re: spamassassin-3.3.1 RPM packages for Fedora and RHEL5
Posted by Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>.
Bill Landry wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 09:01:26 -0700:
> I tried it with Fedora 12
I didn't say anything about Fedora.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Re: spamassassin-3.3.1 RPM packages for Fedora and RHEL5
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
On Mon, March 22, 2010 9:01 am, Bill Landry wrote:
> On 3/22/2010 4:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> Warren Togami wrote on Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:13:10 -0400:
>>
>>> I highly recommend NOT building the RPM package from the spec file
>>> contained
>>> within the spamassassin tarball. It has never been tested to work on
>>> Fedora
>>> or Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
>>
>> Well, it works perfectly on CentOS, so I assume on RHEL as well. And it
>> doesn't contain unwanted dependencies (like the one from rpmforge, don't
>> know
>> about yours) or adds spamd as a service or such that I don't want. So,
>> it's
>> perfect for me and it has worked for me for years and still does. So, I
>> don't
>> recommend not using it :-)
>
> I tried it with Fedora 12, and would *not* install/upgrade due to a
> number of unwanted dependencies.
>
> Thanks for providing a working RPM install/upgrade for Fedora, Warren!
I seem to have pissed Warren off with this reply, so I just wanted to make
sure that no one else misinterpreted my reply. What I was attempting to
do was confirm what Warren had said in his original post (and direct in
response to Kai's comment that the spec file works fine for him with
CentOS), that the spec file included with the tar.gz distribution does not
build and install without issue on Fedora 12, but that Warren's RPM build
*does* install cleanly and without issue on Fedora 12.
My apologies if this was not understood in my previous post.
Bill
Re: spamassassin-3.3.1 RPM packages for Fedora and RHEL5
Posted by Bill Landry <bi...@inetmsg.com>.
On 3/22/2010 4:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Warren Togami wrote on Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:13:10 -0400:
>
>> I highly recommend NOT building the RPM package from the spec file contained
>> within the spamassassin tarball. It has never been tested to work on Fedora
>> or Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
>
> Well, it works perfectly on CentOS, so I assume on RHEL as well. And it
> doesn't contain unwanted dependencies (like the one from rpmforge, don't know
> about yours) or adds spamd as a service or such that I don't want. So, it's
> perfect for me and it has worked for me for years and still does. So, I don't
> recommend not using it :-)
I tried it with Fedora 12, and would *not* install/upgrade due to a
number of unwanted dependencies.
Thanks for providing a working RPM install/upgrade for Fedora, Warren!
Bill
Re: spamassassin-3.3.1 RPM packages for Fedora and RHEL5
Posted by Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>.
Kris Deugau wrote on Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:25:34 -0400:
> I'm curious about these "unwanted dependencies", since I've never had
> trouble with that using the RPMForge package.
I can't tell you as this was at least one year ago. I would have to change
my priorities settings and then pull down an rpm from rf to see what it
was. I can just tell you that once when building new VM templates I
installed the one from rpmforge out of curiosity to see if I could use
these instead of mine and found it pulled in dependencies I didn't want to
install, maybe it was razor/pyzor, I really don't know.
If it works for you that is just fine. It doesn't for me. And the one in
the tarball works very well.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
Re: spamassassin-3.3.1 RPM packages for Fedora and RHEL5
Posted by Kris Deugau <kd...@vianet.ca>.
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Well, it works perfectly on CentOS, so I assume on RHEL as well. And it
> doesn't contain unwanted dependencies (like the one from rpmforge
I'm curious about these "unwanted dependencies", since I've never had
trouble with that using the RPMForge package. About the only things I
see that are not absolutely strictly **REQUIRED** are Net::DNS and gnupg
- and TBH, I can't see why someone would do without either for long.
-kgd
Re: spamassassin-3.3.1 RPM packages for Fedora and RHEL5
Posted by Kai Schaetzl <ma...@conactive.com>.
Warren Togami wrote on Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:13:10 -0400:
> I highly recommend NOT building the RPM package from the spec file contained
> within the spamassassin tarball. It has never been tested to work on Fedora
> or Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Well, it works perfectly on CentOS, so I assume on RHEL as well. And it
doesn't contain unwanted dependencies (like the one from rpmforge, don't know
about yours) or adds spamd as a service or such that I don't want. So, it's
perfect for me and it has worked for me for years and still does. So, I don't
recommend not using it :-)
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com