Chris Purves wrote: > You can also get newer versions of spamassassin from > debian-volatile, which maintains packages that update often (such as > spamassassin, antivirus, etc). You would need to add the following > to your sources.list (although you'll probably want a closer mirror > http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-volatile/volatile-mirrors): > > deb http://gulus.usherbrooke.ca/debian-volatile stable/volatile-sloppy main
Even as a Debian user I was not familiar with volatile-sloppy and needed to do some research. For the benefit other Debian users on the list using spamassassin here is a useful thread about it. http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2006/10/threads.html#00004 > I definitely recommend that you upgrade your spamassassin. The > version currently in volatile is 3.1.5. I can't comment as to the > differences between using backports, as others have suggested, or > volatile. You'll have to research that yourself. If you use > volatile, you won't need to update your preferences file, since > there is a very small subset of packages in that repository. The sarge-backports depot is based on the Testing track. Testing is a staging area for Stable. That means that a user who only uses Stable but adds Sarge-Backports can upgrade from one Stable release to the next Stable release automatically and all of the package postprocessing should happen correctly. In general when things are pulled from Unstable, Experimental or from Volatile that is not true and may require administrative action in order to adjust things at the next upgrade. Packages may need to be manually added or removed. Configuration files may not automatically get postprocessing in the same way as a normal upgrade. How the above applies to spamassasin in the two different depots I don't know because I have not looked specifically. It is probably not terrible for a "heads up" administrator though. At a guess I would say that volatile is more volatile and sarge-backports is more stable. :-) Bob
