Razor via RPM?

[Julian Field]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



Julian Field wrote:
>
>
> Scott Silva wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> I think it might be worth my while just adding the 2 troublesome 
> modules to the MailScanner distro, as this is a very minor change that 
> shouldn't cause any great problem and should just fix this issue. I've 
> pretty much decided not to start distributing my own RPMs of clamav or 
> spamassassin or all their pre-requisites, that's just too much work 
> and is not really worth the bother.
>
> Does anyone have the names of the 2 troublesome modules? I can't find 
> the original list as this thread is getting pretty long :-)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they are Net-DNS and Digest-SHA1. I 
have added those 2 to the MailScanner distribution to just fix this 
little problem. They both install into the site_perl hierarchy, so 
shouldn't need --force ing to work.

Jules

- -- 
Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
www.MailScanner.info
Buy the MailScanner book at www.MailScanner.info/store

MailScanner customisation, or any advanced system administration help?
Contact me at Jules at Jules.FM

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
PGP public key: http://www.jules.fm/julesfm.asc


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.8.1 (Build 2523)
Comment: Use Thunderbird Enigmail to verify this message
Charset: UTF-8

wj8DBQFH3BRTEfZZRxQVtlQRAiVwAKCRPL/ExuBeHDvoYhvHxILlYah3SQCg/YoE
ckqAWTpWp4wW2ZyC6mdbOJ0=
=tgDD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.