On Fri, 23 May 2008, Niko Tyni wrote:
> I suppose we could still codify that perl will activate a trigger on
> major upgrades, so packages could rely on that for the next transition...
Yes.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :
http://www.ouaza.com/liv
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 09:03:16AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > Both of the schemes have the partial upgrade problem: they need
> > co-operation from spamassassin (and the hypothethical other packages)
> > and won't work if perl is upgraded but spamassas
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:41:33PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > There's only one package at the receiving end of a trigger IIRC. So while
> > it's true that you can manually activate a trigger, there's no way that
> > multiple packages will be informed o
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:41:33PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > I was thinking of the perl postinst activating an explicit trigger
> > (with dpkg-trigger) on major upgrades, so spamassassin and any other
> > daemons that need a restart could act on that.
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Niko Tyni wrote:
> I was thinking of the perl postinst activating an explicit trigger
> (with dpkg-trigger) on major upgrades, so spamassassin and any other
> daemons that need a restart could act on that.
>
> Could you please elaborate a bit on why this is broken or unnecessa
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 09:35:04AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > Although there's the glibc precedent, the perl package doesn't really
> > want to know which packages need a restart. I wonder if the new dpkg
> > triggers would be a good solution for thi
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:10:02AM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 06:20:33AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > A much larger amount of spam than usual got through my filters, I
> > think because most of my spam checks couldn't run due to this error.
> > After some confusio
On Thu, 22 May 2008, Niko Tyni wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:10:02AM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> > There are a few different things that need to happen to spamassassin
> > when perl is upgraded. Compiled rules need to be blown away and
> > rebuilt, for example. Unfortunately, perl is in
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:10:02AM -0400, Noah Meyerhans wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 06:20:33AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > A much larger amount of spam than usual got through my filters, I
> > think because most of my spam checks couldn't run due to this error.
> > After some confusion
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 06:20:33AM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> A much larger amount of spam than usual got through my filters, I
> think because most of my spam checks couldn't run due to this error.
> After some confusion, I figured out that I had upgraded perl under a
> running spamd, from 5
Package: spamassassin
Version: 3.2.4-1
Severity: wishlist
When I logged in this morning, I discovered a bunch of messages like
this in my logs:
May 20 06:00:20 jeeves spamd[29091]: plugin: eval failed: Can't locate
unicore/Canonical.pl in @INC (@INC contains: /usr/share/perl5 /etc/perl
/usr/l
11 matches
Mail list logo
