Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 20:38:54 -0500 From: "Matt Emmerton" <matt@gsicomp.on.ca> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: spamassassin Y2010 bug Message-ID: <0B5EA5AACF984974820923C1FC65D7DB@hermes> References: <EB178F24-BF6F-4645-AB0F-5A15A2F51736@goldmark.org><20100101231924.4df469df@gumby.homeunix.com><35F4927C-D6EA-4C27-B9ED-3E07FFA5FD28@goldmark.org><4B3F46ED.7080100@infracaninophile.co.uk><20100102144557.5ad217f7@gumby.homeunix.com><5B9046E5-B39C-434A-9B8E-8C105869C327@goldmark.org><4B406B21.5000800@infracaninophile.co.uk><4B40F9AB.8030409@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20100104004550.2b4eda47@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:10:19 +0000
> Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Comments, critique are welcome. Unless there are any killer bugs,
>> I'll send-pr(1) in a week or so.
>
> You have:
>
> : ${daily_sa_compile="YES"}
>
> sa-compile is installed by the SA port, but it requires devel/re2c,
> which is an optional dependency. With a standard install your script
> will update the rules, the compile will unconditionally fail, and so
> spamd won't get restarted.
>
> You could detect the re2c port, but I think it would be better to turn
> it off by default
>
> I'd also suggest running sa-compile with nice by default.
I've put up a set of diffs (patches) in shar format that address some of
these issues:
1) re2c is listed as a run dependency. No two ways around it - if you do
plan on running sa-compile at some time, you'll need re2c, and chances are
that the machine that is running sa-update is also going to be running
sa-compile.
2) sa-compile is nice(1)'d by default, and you can provide other flags to
nice(1) as well.
See http://www.gsicomp.on.ca/~matt/sa-utils-patches.shar
Regards,
--
Matt Emmerton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0B5EA5AACF984974820923C1FC65D7DB>