https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6511
Jeremy Chadwick <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected], | |[email protected] --- Comment #2 from Jeremy Chadwick <[email protected]> 2010-11-06 14:22:36 UTC --- Regarding the mirror being broken: I've added [email protected] to the CC list in hopes that this can be investigated. Regarding the exit code 0 situation -- I've reviewed the sa-update code, and I see exactly how this situation is occurring. It's actually by design. sa-update gets a list of mirrors (from MIRRORED.BY or via the channel), picks a random mirror, and attempts to fetch the applicable .tar.gz from the mirror 3 times. If all 3 HTTP GET attempts fail, the code spits out a warning (the error message shown above) and moves on to the next mirror in the hash. The relevant code bits are between lines 617 and 649. Also be sure to look at the http_get() function. So the logic of the code seems to be "as long as one of the mirrors worked/has the content we need, exit code 0 is valid". This makes sense, but the man page could use some added clarification. My recommendation would be to improve the sa-update man page from: An exit code of 0 means an update was available, and was downloaded and installed successfully if --checkonly was not specified. ...to: An exit code of 0 means an update was available from at least one mirror and was downloaded and installed successfully if --checkonly was not specified. A warning will be output ("http: GET request failed") if, after 3 repeated fetch attempts, a mirror lacks the update or returns a non-200 HTTP status code. Regarding Daryl and the daryl.dostech.ca mirror -- it's not personal, it's just that I can't find any mention of this mirror in the SA documentation or on the SA Wiki. These sorts of things should be more public. It also doesn't reflect well on the Apache Foundation when you have a mirror which appears to be broken and maintained by someone who's self-proclaimed "lazy" (which in turn makes the visitor wonder, in this circumstance, just how valid that claim is), even if he is a chairman. I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm overreacting, but given the situation and the circumstances, my first inclination was to assume someone had circumvented one of the SA mirrors and induced an HTTP redirect to some "mystery" box that had been compromised -- or that the system administrator isn't paying attention to failures (or the failures are unbeknownst to him). I hope you understand my POV, as I do understand and accept yours. -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
