+-le 25/09/2004 02:20 -0700, Pat Lashley écrivait : | --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?
I don't want to have a SA3 port, I'm more in favor of a SA264 port designed for perl 5.005_03 as the databases/p5-DBI-137 port. This is still under discussion. -- Mathieu Arnold