SA 3.0 TRAP
If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION: If you haven't been reading this list carefully you will have missed the fact that spamd has been moved from /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin . However, the old version remains in /usr/sbin which is often where your scripts expect to find it. (At least in SuSE 8 it is so). Easiest fix it to rm the one in /usr/sbin and link the new one there, and then go to /etc/sysconfig/spamd and remove the -a argument in that file. Took 5 minutes to install 3.0 with CPAN (gotta love cpan) and then it took me 2 hours to track down Brian Gentry's post in the archives. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.mail.spam.spamassassin.general/56501 WHY is this not in BOLD TYPE in the readme ??? -- _ John Andersen pgpWOXAfKemqF.pgp Description: signature
Re: SA 3.0 TRAP
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 01:30:19AM -0800, John Andersen wrote: If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION: If you haven't been reading this list carefully you will have missed the fact that spamd has been moved from /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin . However, the old version remains in /usr/sbin which is often where your scripts expect to find it. (At least in SuSE 8 it is so). Easiest fix it to rm the one in /usr/sbin and link the new one there, and then go to /etc/sysconfig/spamd and remove the -a argument in that file. Alternatively, perhaps the released version could be amended so that spamd is installed in /usr/sbin rather than /usr/bin, which is I understand what the Debian package maintainers have done (that wouldn't assist users who have already upgraded, of course). -- Anthony Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SA 3.0 TRAP
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:30:19 -0800 John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION: If you haven't been reading this list carefully you will have missed the fact that spamd has been moved from /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin . However, the old version remains in /usr/sbin which is often where your scripts expect to find it. (At least in SuSE 8 it is so). [...] WHY is this not in BOLD TYPE in the readme ??? Maybe the issue is OS- and version-dependent and wasn't apparent in testing? -- Bob
Re: SA 3.0 TRAP
Justin Mason wrote: Yeah -- this is almost definitely something to do with SuSE's packaging of either perl (if it uses the defaults from ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or SpamAssassin itself (if its rpm spec moves the file around as Debian does). Actually, for any real package manager (ie, rpm or dpkg), upgrading a package should remove all old files as a part of the upgrade. CPAN doesn't really keep track of exactly which files have been installed where in the same way that rpm or dpkg does. I'd be curious to know why spamd has apparently moved from /usr/sbin to /usr/bin in the first place; daemons like spamd don't usually belong in /usr/bin. -kgd -- Get your mouse off of there! You don't know where that email has been!
Re: SA 3.0 TRAP
On Friday 24 September 2004 08:52 am, Justin Mason wrote: Bob Apthorpe writes: On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 01:30:19 -0800 John Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you are thinking about installing Spamassasin 3.0 PAY ATTENTION: If you haven't been reading this list carefully you will have missed the fact that spamd has been moved from /usr/sbin/ to /usr/bin . However, the old version remains in /usr/sbin which is often where your scripts expect to find it. (At least in SuSE 8 it is so). [...] WHY is this not in BOLD TYPE in the readme ??? Maybe the issue is OS- and version-dependent and wasn't apparent in testing? Yeah -- this is almost definitely something to do with SuSE's packaging of either perl (if it uses the defaults from ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or SpamAssassin itself (if its rpm spec moves the file around as Debian does). Except that SA on my machines have always only been installed with CPAN... -- _ John Andersen pgp5ObjFaDsiP.pgp Description: signature
Re: SA 3.0 TRAP
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:37:31PM -0400, Kris Deugau wrote: Justin Mason wrote: Yeah -- this is almost definitely something to do with SuSE's packaging of either perl (if it uses the defaults from ExtUtils::MakeMaker) or SpamAssassin itself (if its rpm spec moves the file around as Debian does). Actually, for any real package manager (ie, rpm or dpkg), upgrading a package should remove all old files as a part of the upgrade. The issue related to SuSE is that previously, one has been able to install the SuSE default .rpm package, and then subsequently upgrade using cpan without removing the old package first since the old binaries and entire contents of /usr/share/spamassassin/ have been overwritten by that process. SuSE are unlike Debian (for instance) in that they don't release (with one or two exceptions) upgraded packages other than to address security vulnerabilites, so to upgrade to a more recent version of any particular application cannot generally be done with a SuSE .rpm. For those that primarily maintain and administer their system using YaST, manual configuration of startup scripts etc is also somewhat difficult so it can be of benefit to rely on SuSE's copy of /etc/init.d/spamd - for example, the one recommended in spamd's README.SuSE file doesn't actually work, on SuSE 8.2 at least. So, installing the default SuSE .rpm that came with one's version and then subsequently upgrading one's SpamAssassin using cpan has benefits there too. -- Anthony Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED]
