Razor via RPM?
MailScanner at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Fri Mar 14 16:39:18 GMT 2008
David Lee wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Julian Field wrote:
>> This actually creates a separate problem, that of all the perl modules
>> which react badly with the Perl RPM as they overwrite the same files. Do
>> I just try to find them and --force them like I do in the main
>> MailScanner distro?
>> I've built all the spec files and can build the SRPMs very easily. But
>> I'm not convinced I'm not wasting my time...
> Thanks for the reply. Appreciated.
> Let me re-word the overall issue at overview level:
> The aim is to make as easy as is reasonably possible a complete
> installation, especially on rpm-based systems. Your existing scheme is
> hugely, hugely helpful in this! Many thanks.
> o MS is handled well by your distribution(s);
> o Clam/SA is handled well by your (single) "tar" distribution;
> o DCC follows well as a "wget ...; rpm -U ...";
> o Pyzor follows well as a "wget ...; rpm -U ...";
> But Razor doesn't follow as easily. A "wget ...; rpm -U ..." (from Dag's
> repository) almost works, but not quite, because of those two perl
> packages. The "wget... rpm..." sequence can be neatly automated under
> tools such as "cfengine". But the Razor build is considerably more
> awkward and less straightforward.
> So that (as a high level overview) is the problem I'm trying to address
> (and before getting bogged down in the techy stuff).
> So now to the techy bog...
> Just a thought: suppose those two perl modules (Digest::SHA1 and Net::DNS)
> were also included in your MS list (where the ".rpmmacros" mechanism is
> already in place). Might that do the job?
> Following that MS install, there would be a potential sub-issue: that of a
> subsequent Clam/SA install trying a re-install over the top. (I guess
> you'd still want them in Clam/SA because that is where the true dependency
> graph lies.)
> Suppose I offered to investigate bundling those two modules into the MS
> rpm-based install, and the possible knock-on interaction with a subsequent
> Clam/SA install.
> Might that have a chance of flying?
Just adding 2 modules to the MailScanner distribution sounds like a very
quick hack to solve the problem. But would people prefer an RPM-based
installation of the ClamAV+SpamAssassin installation anyway? I have a
feeling it might cause more problems than it solves, as any perl upgrade
would be even more complicated that it is now due to all the clashing
modules that have to be removed and reinstalled.
What are anyone's thoughts?
Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store
Need help customising MailScanner?
Need help fixing or optimising your systems?
Need help getting you started solving new requirements from your boss?
PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the MailScanner