You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@spamassassin.apache.org by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com> on 2014/03/14 22:00:47 UTC
CentOS/RHEL repo?
Which is the best repo to use for SpamAssassin?
In the past, I have installed in via CPAN or used RPMForge. I'm trying
to avoid non-rpm installs on my new server and RPMForge and the CentOS
base are both behind on the versions (3.3.1 and 3.3.2).
I just found the link to the SpamTips.org packages, but that is also at
3.3.2 right now.
I have built rpms from source with a provided spec file for other
packages. There is no spec file included with the source in this case.
Could I grab the spec file from one of the existing rpms and use it to
build the latest version, or would I run into problems doing that?
Thanks,
Bowie
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Jeremy McSpadden <je...@fluxlabs.net>.
Centalt may have it. I'm not sure. 3.4 is still fairly new.
--
Jeremy McSpadden
Flux Labs | http://www.fluxlabs.net | Endless Solutions
Office : 850-250-5590x501<tel:850-250-5590;501> | Cell : 850-890-2543<tel:850-890-2543> | Fax : 850-254-2955<tel:850-254-2955>
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 2:01 PM -0700, "Bowie Bailey" <Bo...@BUC.com>> wrote:
Which is the best repo to use for SpamAssassin?
In the past, I have installed in via CPAN or used RPMForge. I'm trying
to avoid non-rpm installs on my new server and RPMForge and the CentOS
base are both behind on the versions (3.3.1 and 3.3.2).
I just found the link to the SpamTips.org packages, but that is also at
3.3.2 right now.
I have built rpms from source with a provided spec file for other
packages. There is no spec file included with the source in this case.
Could I grab the spec file from one of the existing rpms and use it to
build the latest version, or would I run into problems doing that?
Thanks,
Bowie
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Birta Levente <bl...@gmail.com>.
On 17/03/2014 15:28, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 3/17/2014 2:27 AM, Amir Caspi wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:12 AM, Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, for simplicity, RPMForge is probably the easiest, even if it
>>> doesn't have the latest versions. Latest CentOS6 x64 version is 3.3.1.
>> rpmforge-extras has v3.3.2. Atomic also has it. Nobody has 3.4 yet.
>
> 3.4 was released over a month ago at this point and should not be a
> difficult package to build. Maybe I'm just expecting too much. What
> is the general lag time for an updated package to make it into the repo?
>
I'm really a beginner with specs and stuff, but I compiled without
problem with the spec from the latest rpmforge or whatever repo's
....3.3.2.src.rpm
I don't know if is correct to build this way, but works in production
since 3.4.0 rc3 is out ... meaning since oct. 11, 2013
--
Levi
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 09:28 -0400, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 3/17/2014 2:27 AM, Amir Caspi wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:12 AM, Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Well, for simplicity, RPMForge is probably the easiest, even if it
> >> doesn't have the latest versions. Latest CentOS6 x64 version is 3.3.1.
> > rpmforge-extras has v3.3.2. Atomic also has it. Nobody has 3.4 yet.
>
> 3.4 was released over a month ago at this point and should not be a
> difficult package to build. Maybe I'm just expecting too much. What is
> the general lag time for an updated package to make it into the repo?
>
Probably quite long for both RHEL and CentOS: RHEL always lags Fedora by
quite a bit, since RHEL is an long-term support distro. CentOS is
derived from RHEL, so you'd expect it to lag behind RHEL.
Martin
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Amir Caspi <ce...@3phase.com>.
On Mar 17, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Axb <ax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What's the benefit from installing from RPM?
In my case, it is a necessity; my server runs a control panel for virtual hosts and distributes the software to each host based on the rpms installed.
If I install from source I would need to build my own rpm, which I'm not really comfortable doing yet (nor do I really know how).
--- Amir
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com>.
On 3/17/2014 9:54 AM, Axb wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> What's the benefit from installing from RPM?
>
Less hassle in keeping the system up to date. I don't have to:
- Remember that it's time to check for a new version.
- Remember where to download it from.
- Dig through my log files to remember how I installed it last time.
- Run the configure / make / make install.
- Chase dependencies.
- Figure out why its not working (if I missed a dependency).
It's just so much simpler to run:
# yum check-update
# yum update spamassassin
I do have a few packages that I have installed from source. But I try
to keep the number of that beast under a handful.
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>.
On 3/17/2014 10:34 AM, Axb wrote:
> On 03/17/2014 03:12 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> I may build from source anyway just so I can keep it current. I can
>> deal with a bit of a lag with SA, but I'd prefer to update it within a
>> month or so. I'm already installing ClamAV from source so I can make
>> sure to keep it current (don't want any lag at all on that one).
> Just remember to do the yum remove before installing from source, unless
> you take time to set all paths as RHEL does.
> If you run spamd, you may want to save your init script & options/paths.
> make install won't install one for you.
Right. Been there, done that... :)
This is a new system, so I don't have to worry about existing paths or
config files. I was just trying to decide on the best way to
install/maintain SA. When I built the old system several years ago, the
repos didn't have a lot of the Perl packages that I needed, so I decided
to just use CPAN for Perl stuff. Now most of the common Perl packages
are in the repos, so I was taking another look at it.
--
Bowie
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com>.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:35:50 +1300
Jason Haar <Ja...@trimble.com> wrote:
> Awesome Kevin - thanks!
>
> Any idea if SA-3.4.0 will be included in Redhat-7 when it comes out?
Well, the rhel7beta has:
3.3.2-15.el7
No idea if they would be updating that or not...
kevin
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Jason Haar <Ja...@trimble.com>.
Awesome Kevin - thanks!
Any idea if SA-3.4.0 will be included in Redhat-7 when it comes out?
Thanks
Jason
On 20/03/14 05:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Hi there. (One of) the Fedora spamassassin package maintainers here.
> Yes, that was changed for the systemd side of things to allow it to
> log to journal and more closely/directly monitor the spamd process.
> I've conditionalized that now so that it should build/do the right
> thing on el distros again. So, you shouldn't need to make any changes
> from the rawhide src.rpm to build yourself. I have also created a copr
> for el5/el6:
> http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/kevin/spamassassin-el/ Feedback
> welcome on those packages/repo (Please send directly to me, don't file
> Fedora bugs on it). Hopefully folks find them useful. Thanks, kevin
--
Cheers
Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +1 408 481 8171
PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com>.
On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 15:55:44 +0100
Alex Woick <al...@wombaz.de> wrote:
> It's actually quite easy to build a SA 3.4 rpm for Centos 6. I
> downloaded the existing Fedora Core 21
> spamassassin-3.4.0-2.fc21.src.rpm from the FC 21 source repository
> and did a --rebuild on a Centos 6 machine.
>
> The resulting rpm works almost as drop-in replacement for 3.3.0.
>
> "Almost" means you only have to re-add the -d parameter in
> /etc/sysconfig/spamassassin that was removed since 3.3.0. If you
> don't do this, spamd will not start in background but in foreground,
> and the start script hangs.
> I don't know why -d was removed, probably due to changes due to
> systemd use instead of upstart. But although fc21 is systemd-based,
> the spec file still includes a init.d script when built on Centos 6
> and will omit systemd-related things.
Hi there. (One of) the Fedora spamassassin package maintainers here.
Yes, that was changed for the systemd side of things to allow it to log
to journal and more closely/directly monitor the spamd process.
I've conditionalized that now so that it should build/do the right
thing on el distros again. So, you shouldn't need to make any changes
from the rawhide src.rpm to build yourself.
I have also created a copr for el5/el6:
http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/kevin/spamassassin-el/
Feedback welcome on those packages/repo (Please send directly to me,
don't file Fedora bugs on it). Hopefully folks find them useful.
Thanks,
kevin
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Alex Woick <al...@wombaz.de>.
It's actually quite easy to build a SA 3.4 rpm for Centos 6. I
downloaded the existing Fedora Core 21 spamassassin-3.4.0-2.fc21.src.rpm
from the FC 21 source repository and did a --rebuild on a Centos 6 machine.
The resulting rpm works almost as drop-in replacement for 3.3.0.
"Almost" means you only have to re-add the -d parameter in
/etc/sysconfig/spamassassin that was removed since 3.3.0. If you don't
do this, spamd will not start in background but in foreground, and the
start script hangs.
I don't know why -d was removed, probably due to changes due to systemd
use instead of upstart. But although fc21 is systemd-based, the spec
file still includes a init.d script when built on Centos 6 and will omit
systemd-related things.
Tschau
Alex
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 03/17/2014 05:55 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 17:34 +0100, Axb wrote:
>
>> Are you volunteering to manage this?
>> Every distro/OS has a packaging team. It would make more sense for those
>> interested, to join your distro_du_jour project and work with them. Why
>> would the SA project want to reinvent the wheel?
>>
> I might - if I understood RPM creation, but learning about that is still
> on my todo list.
>
> I've recently noticed that there are a few applications that are now
> running their own repositories (Google Earth and Adobe Flash) or are
> distributed through 3rd party repositories (vlc on RPMfusion) and
> thought I should mention it as a possible way of shortening the time
> between a new version becoming available and it appearing as part of the
> various Linux distros. Personally, I'm not bothered either way: 3.3.2
> does what I need and so I'm quite happy to wait for 3.4.0 to appear in
> the Fedora repositories.
>
> Apologies if I ruffled any feathers - that wasn't my intention.
no apologies needed - was just trying to make a point about redundancy
of effort.
As our favourite "Cat-Herder-in-Chief" mentioned, dev resources/time are
finite yet fresh talent commited to the project is always welcome.
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 17:34 +0100, Axb wrote:
> Are you volunteering to manage this?
> Every distro/OS has a packaging team. It would make more sense for those
> interested, to join your distro_du_jour project and work with them. Why
> would the SA project want to reinvent the wheel?
>
I might - if I understood RPM creation, but learning about that is still
on my todo list.
I've recently noticed that there are a few applications that are now
running their own repositories (Google Earth and Adobe Flash) or are
distributed through 3rd party repositories (vlc on RPMfusion) and
thought I should mention it as a possible way of shortening the time
between a new version becoming available and it appearing as part of the
various Linux distros. Personally, I'm not bothered either way: 3.3.2
does what I need and so I'm quite happy to wait for 3.4.0 to appear in
the Fedora repositories.
Apologies if I ruffled any feathers - that wasn't my intention.
Martin
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 03/17/2014 05:28 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 15:34 +0100, Axb wrote:
>> On 03/17/2014 03:12 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/17/2014 9:54 AM, Axb wrote:
>>>> download source,
>>>> unpack
>>>> perl Makefile.PL
>>>> make && make install && sa-update
>>>>
>>> The benefit is having all of the packages controlled by yum/rpm. It
>>> makes it easier to determine what is installed and what the dependencies
>>> are. Building from source, I have to manually track dependencies and
>>> make sure they are all installed so it will work properly.
>>>
>
> Quite. I wonder - is there a possibility of the SA project itself
> releasing Linux packages (RPM for RedHat and derivatives, .deb for
> Debian and derivatives plus whatever package types SUSE uses?
Are you volunteering to manage this?
Every distro/OS has a packaging team. It would make more sense for those
interested, to join your distro_du_jour project and work with them. Why
would the SA project want to reinvent the wheel?
> Once set up, this should be fairly low maintenance and not add much
> effort, since the package building steps can just be added to the
> current release process that currently produces tarballs and, uploads to
> CPAN. If Apache would support it, SA could even be its own repo server
> for the Spamassassin package(s): its trivial to incorporate additional
> repo sources into a RedHat yum configuration and I assume the same goes
> for Debian apt-get and SUSE. I'm already using additional RPM
> repositories for a few Fedora packages that RedHat doesn't provide.
>
> Just a thought...
There are 3rd party repos wich already offer SA 3.4 rpms. You just gotta
find them AND trust them.
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Dave Pooser <da...@pooserville.com>.
On 3/17/14 11:28 AM, "Martin Gregorie" <ma...@gregorie.org> wrote:
>I wonder - is there a possibility of the SA project itself
>releasing Linux packages (RPM for RedHat and derivatives, .deb for
>Debian and derivatives plus whatever package types SUSE uses?
>
>Once set up, this should be fairly low maintenance and not add much
>effort,
As much as I'd like prebuilt RPMs, I still think the developers' time and
energy is better spent on improving SA and on adding more rules than on
building RPMs. (Especially because where does that end-- should they also
build packages for Mac OS X? For Solaris/Illumos?)
As far as I'm concerned, the proper role for the project in binary
distribution is the same as it has been-- when other sources create the
packages, the SA project provides links (and disclaims support). Anything
beyond that is suboptimal allocation of an all-too-finite resource (dev
time).
--
Dave Pooser
Cat-Herder-in-Chief, Pooserville.com
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 15:34 +0100, Axb wrote:
> On 03/17/2014 03:12 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> >
> > On 3/17/2014 9:54 AM, Axb wrote:
> >> download source,
> >> unpack
> >> perl Makefile.PL
> >> make && make install && sa-update
> >>
> > The benefit is having all of the packages controlled by yum/rpm. It
> > makes it easier to determine what is installed and what the dependencies
> > are. Building from source, I have to manually track dependencies and
> > make sure they are all installed so it will work properly.
> >
Quite. I wonder - is there a possibility of the SA project itself
releasing Linux packages (RPM for RedHat and derivatives, .deb for
Debian and derivatives plus whatever package types SUSE uses?
Once set up, this should be fairly low maintenance and not add much
effort, since the package building steps can just be added to the
current release process that currently produces tarballs and, uploads to
CPAN. If Apache would support it, SA could even be its own repo server
for the Spamassassin package(s): its trivial to incorporate additional
repo sources into a RedHat yum configuration and I assume the same goes
for Debian apt-get and SUSE. I'm already using additional RPM
repositories for a few Fedora packages that RedHat doesn't provide.
Just a thought...
Martin
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 03/17/2014 03:12 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>
> On 3/17/2014 9:54 AM, Axb wrote:
>> On 03/17/2014 02:28 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2014 2:27 AM, Amir Caspi wrote:
>>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:12 AM, Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, for simplicity, RPMForge is probably the easiest, even if it
>>>>> doesn't have the latest versions. Latest CentOS6 x64 version is
>>>>> 3.3.1.
>>>> rpmforge-extras has v3.3.2. Atomic also has it. Nobody has 3.4 yet.
>>> 3.4 was released over a month ago at this point and should not be a
>>> difficult package to build. Maybe I'm just expecting too much. What is
>>> the general lag time for an updated package to make it into the repo?
>>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> What's the benefit from installing from RPM?
>>
>> Is waiting for a distro's release better than:
>>
>> download source,
>> unpack
>> perl Makefile.PL
>> make && make install && sa-update
>>
>> IMPORTANT: if you do this and are running a rpm install, make sure to
>> remove it before installing from source or you'll have a bunch of
>> orphans....
>>
>> If you want to install in non standard paths, there's command line
>> switches.
>>
>> Installing from source also allows you to do a quick upgrade from trunk
>> if you decide you need a that special bug fix which hasn't been released
>> by the distro..
>
> The benefit is having all of the packages controlled by yum/rpm. It
> makes it easier to determine what is installed and what the dependencies
> are. Building from source, I have to manually track dependencies and
> make sure they are all installed so it will work properly.
>
> If I use packages from a repo, all I have to do is "yum install
> spamassassin" or "yum update spamassassin" and any dependencies are
> automatically taken care of for me. I can also issue a simple "yum
> update" and update everything on the system without having to remember
> to go back and grab the SA update separately.
>
> If I build the rpm package myself, I lose some of the convenience of the
> upgrade, but I can still take advantage of the package management and
> dependency tracking features.
>
> It just makes management much simpler.
simpler maybe, but leaves you at the mercy of other ppl's schedule.
In the cases of SA & ClamAV I prefer control over simple.
> I may build from source anyway just so I can keep it current. I can
> deal with a bit of a lag with SA, but I'd prefer to update it within a
> month or so. I'm already installing ClamAV from source so I can make
> sure to keep it current (don't want any lag at all on that one).
Just remember to do the yum remove before installing from source, unless
you take time to set all paths as RHEL does.
If you run spamd, you may want to save your init script & options/paths.
make install won't install one for you.
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>.
On 3/17/2014 9:54 AM, Axb wrote:
> On 03/17/2014 02:28 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 3/17/2014 2:27 AM, Amir Caspi wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:12 AM, Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, for simplicity, RPMForge is probably the easiest, even if it
>>>> doesn't have the latest versions. Latest CentOS6 x64 version is 3.3.1.
>>> rpmforge-extras has v3.3.2. Atomic also has it. Nobody has 3.4 yet.
>> 3.4 was released over a month ago at this point and should not be a
>> difficult package to build. Maybe I'm just expecting too much. What is
>> the general lag time for an updated package to make it into the repo?
>>
> Guys,
>
> What's the benefit from installing from RPM?
>
> Is waiting for a distro's release better than:
>
> download source,
> unpack
> perl Makefile.PL
> make && make install && sa-update
>
> IMPORTANT: if you do this and are running a rpm install, make sure to
> remove it before installing from source or you'll have a bunch of
> orphans....
>
> If you want to install in non standard paths, there's command line switches.
>
> Installing from source also allows you to do a quick upgrade from trunk
> if you decide you need a that special bug fix which hasn't been released
> by the distro..
The benefit is having all of the packages controlled by yum/rpm. It
makes it easier to determine what is installed and what the dependencies
are. Building from source, I have to manually track dependencies and
make sure they are all installed so it will work properly.
If I use packages from a repo, all I have to do is "yum install
spamassassin" or "yum update spamassassin" and any dependencies are
automatically taken care of for me. I can also issue a simple "yum
update" and update everything on the system without having to remember
to go back and grab the SA update separately.
If I build the rpm package myself, I lose some of the convenience of the
upgrade, but I can still take advantage of the package management and
dependency tracking features.
It just makes management much simpler.
I may build from source anyway just so I can keep it current. I can
deal with a bit of a lag with SA, but I'd prefer to update it within a
month or so. I'm already installing ClamAV from source so I can make
sure to keep it current (don't want any lag at all on that one).
--
Bowie
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Axb <ax...@gmail.com>.
On 03/17/2014 02:28 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 3/17/2014 2:27 AM, Amir Caspi wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:12 AM, Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, for simplicity, RPMForge is probably the easiest, even if it
>>> doesn't have the latest versions. Latest CentOS6 x64 version is 3.3.1.
>> rpmforge-extras has v3.3.2. Atomic also has it. Nobody has 3.4 yet.
>
> 3.4 was released over a month ago at this point and should not be a
> difficult package to build. Maybe I'm just expecting too much. What is
> the general lag time for an updated package to make it into the repo?
>
Guys,
What's the benefit from installing from RPM?
Is waiting for a distro's release better than:
download source,
unpack
perl Makefile.PL
make && make install && sa-update
IMPORTANT: if you do this and are running a rpm install, make sure to
remove it before installing from source or you'll have a bunch of
orphans....
If you want to install in non standard paths, there's command line switches.
Installing from source also allows you to do a quick upgrade from trunk
if you decide you need a that special bug fix which hasn't been released
by the distro..
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com>.
On 3/17/2014 9:28 AM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 3/17/2014 2:27 AM, Amir Caspi wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:12 AM, Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Well, for simplicity, RPMForge is probably the easiest, even if it
>>> doesn't have the latest versions. Latest CentOS6 x64 version is 3.3.1.
>> rpmforge-extras has v3.3.2. Atomic also has it. Nobody has 3.4 yet.
>
> 3.4 was released over a month ago at this point and should not be a
> difficult package to build. Maybe I'm just expecting too much. What is
> the general lag time for an updated package to make it into the repo?
>
You would have to ask whoever created the RPM up on RPMForge. See the
Changelog at the bottom of the page. I don't know who the current
custodian is.
http://rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/dag/redhat/el6/x86_64/extras/spamassassin-3.3.2-4.el6.rfx.x86_64.html
Build date: Wed Jan 25 14:50:16 2012
Release date for 3.3.2 was 2011-06-16.
So looks like about a 7 month lag on the last release, which may or may
not mean anything at all.
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Bowie Bailey <Bo...@BUC.com>.
On 3/17/2014 2:27 AM, Amir Caspi wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:12 AM, Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, for simplicity, RPMForge is probably the easiest, even if it
>> doesn't have the latest versions. Latest CentOS6 x64 version is 3.3.1.
> rpmforge-extras has v3.3.2. Atomic also has it. Nobody has 3.4 yet.
3.4 was released over a month ago at this point and should not be a
difficult package to build. Maybe I'm just expecting too much. What is
the general lag time for an updated package to make it into the repo?
--
Bowie
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Martin Gregorie <ma...@gregorie.org>.
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 00:27 -0600, Amir Caspi wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:12 AM, Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, for simplicity, RPMForge is probably the easiest, even if it
> > doesn't have the latest versions. Latest CentOS6 x64 version is 3.3.1.
>
> rpmforge-extras has v3.3.2. Atomic also has it. Nobody has 3.4 yet.
>
3.3.2 is in the standard RedHat Fedora repos.
Martin
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Amir Caspi <ce...@3phase.com>.
On Mar 17, 2014, at 12:12 AM, Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com> wrote:
> Well, for simplicity, RPMForge is probably the easiest, even if it
> doesn't have the latest versions. Latest CentOS6 x64 version is 3.3.1.
rpmforge-extras has v3.3.2. Atomic also has it. Nobody has 3.4 yet.
--- Amir
Re: CentOS/RHEL repo?
Posted by Thomas Harold <th...@nybeta.com>.
On 3/14/2014 5:00 PM, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> Which is the best repo to use for SpamAssassin?
>
Well, for simplicity, RPMForge is probably the easiest, even if it
doesn't have the latest versions. Latest CentOS6 x64 version is 3.3.1.
I use the following includepkgs= line in my
/etc/yum.repos.d/rpmforge.repo file.
[rpmforge]
...
includepkgs=amavisd-new spamassass* clam* perl* lha zoo ripole unrar
cabextract altermime freeze arc unarj p7zip nomarch
I suggest that you do the same for any other 3rd party repo. Only bring
in the absolute minimums. That way if someone uploads a new version of
something that is already on your system, you won't end up being
upgraded without choosing it yourself.