--On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit : | SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update | to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability | in the API. For example, it would break the Exim port which by | default includes the ExiScan patches. (The Exim port would still | build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.)
I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will be the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to have SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried). So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with the patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for them to update/patch/whatever.
That seems like an awfully short transition period. Why not a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated? Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated and in the field long enough for some serious testing?
-Pat