Razor via RPM?

[Brendan Pirie]

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 
>> 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?
> 
> Jules
> 

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

Brendan