Razor via RPM?

[Scott Silva]

on 3-14-2008 9:39 AM Julian Field spake the following:
> 
> 
> 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
> 
I'm not sure if Dag's repo has an up to date spamassassin, but the atrpms repo 
has the current version. If you want to stick with pure rpm, it shouldn't be 
too hard to find a repo that can serve your needs. I don't think Julian is 
going to want to go through all the trouble to make rpms that will be right 
for every rpm based system, and who is going to decide which one or two he is 
going to focus on?
We already have gone through the Fedora VS CentOS debate many times.

-- 
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20080314/a44a8bd6/signature.bin