Razor via RPM?
bpirie at rma.edu
Fri Mar 14 17:32:07 GMT 2008
Julian Field wrote:
> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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?
With the latest MailScanner running nicely with Clamd, and being that I
install Clamd from rpmforge (CentOS), I'm not sure I see the need for
the RPM ClamAV+SpamAssasin package. Undoubtedly there are still people
who use rpm-based systems and use clamav, but I'd be happy with just a
SpamAssassin package. (If rpmforge kept their spamassassin packages
more up-to-date I wouldn't even see a desire for that, and if I were
more versed on maintaining packages I would volunteer to lend my time.)
Just my $0.02
More information about the MailScanner