Repository for SuSE 9.2?

[Al Bogner <sp...@ml061.pinguin.uni.cc>]

I would like to use aptitude to install packages and update SuSE 9.2.

Which repository do I have to use for spamassassin?

At the moment I have:

/etc/apt/sources.list
rpm ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt/ SuSE/9.2-i386 update-prpm 
security-prpm
rpm ftp://mirrors.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/pub/linux/suse/apt/ 
SuSE/9.2-i386 update security
rpm ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt/ SuSE/9.2-i386 update security
rpm      ftp://ftp4.gwdg.de/pub/linux/suse/apt SuSE/9.2-i386  rpmkeys 
suser-guru base

apt-cache policy spamassassin
spamassassin:
  Installed: (none)
  Candidate: 3.0.4-1.3
  Version Table:
     3.0.4-1.3 0
        500 ftp://ftp.gwdg.de SuSE/9.2-i386/update-prpm pkglist
        500 ftp://ftp.gwdg.de SuSE/9.2-i386/security-prpm pkglist
        500 ftp://mirrors.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de SuSE/9.2-i386/update 
pkglist
        500 ftp://mirrors.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de SuSE/9.2-i386/security 
pkglist
        500 ftp://ftp.gwdg.de SuSE/9.2-i386/update pkglist
        500 ftp://ftp.gwdg.de SuSE/9.2-i386/security pkglist
     3.0.4-1.1 0
        500 ftp://mirrors.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de SuSE/9.2-i386/update 
pkglist
        500 ftp://mirrors.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de SuSE/9.2-i386/security 
pkglist
        500 ftp://ftp.gwdg.de SuSE/9.2-i386/update pkglist
        500 ftp://ftp.gwdg.de SuSE/9.2-i386/security pkglist
     3.0.3-1suse92 0
        500 ftp://ftp4.gwdg.de SuSE/9.2-i386/suser-guru pkglist
     3.0.0-3 0
        500 ftp://ftp4.gwdg.de SuSE/9.2-i386/base pkglist


Shouldn't there be a newer one?

Al

Re: Repository for SuSE 9.2?

[Matt Kettler <mk...@evi-inc.com>]

Al Bogner wrote:
> I would like to use aptitude to install packages and update SuSE 9.2.
> 
>   Version Table:
>      3.0.4-1.3 0
>      3.0.4-1.1 0
> Shouldn't there be a newer one?

For suse 9.2 from the official distribution? Probably not.. maybe in 10.0.

Even with that  distro maintainers are well known for not adopting the current
release of anything. SA included. Many distros out there would prefer to
backport patches than upgrade wholesale to the current version. Many distros are
still using 3.0.3 patched with backport of the DoS fixes from 3.0.4 and 3.0.5
(ie: Debian)

The fact that there's two versions of SA 3.0.4 suggests Suse is doing this
"mixed version" patching as well. I'd venture to guess that 3.0.4-1.3 is some
weird mixture of 3.0.4 and newer releases.

The mixed-version backporting has the benefit of not adopting new code too
rapidly, which might be useful from a stability standpoint. However, I always am
a little concerned when distros seem to over-do this. In the case of SA
backporting 3.0.4 security fix code to 3.0.3 seems like creating Frankenstein
that looses significant functionality fixes while providing little extra stability.

However, if you're really afraid of making upgrades on production boxes, that's
the way to go, and that's the model Debian stable follows. I think it's a little
extreme, but some people need that so that's what distros do.


I like distro packages for some things where stability is important, but by and
large I'm finding that they are a bad idea for anything that I want to keep
abreast of rapid updates. SA and ClamAV come to mind. I've switched to using
source-tarball installs for these things a long time ago. Using source install
has it's own problems, like I'm responsible for incompatibilities and upgrade
problems. That's what test boxes are for.

On the plus side I'm forced to know what's in my version of SA, Others know
what's in my version of SA by version number, and I know I can upgrade as soon
as a new release is ready, should it pass my test-box run.