FreeBSD port of SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (continued)

[Pat Lashley]

--On Saturday, September 25, 2004 08:59:03 +0200 Mathieu Arnold <mat at mat.cc> wrote:

> +-Le 24/09/2004 18:20 -0700, Pat Lashley a dit :
>| SA 3.0 should probably be a separate port rather than an update
>| to the existing SA port; due to the lack of backwards compatability
>| in the API.  For example, it would break the Exim port which by
>| default includes the ExiScan patches.  (The Exim port would still
>| build; but the SpamAssassin support would fail at run time.)
>
> I don't think we will keep the old spamassassin. The 2.64 version will be
> the only one working with 5.005_03, but well... It's not possible to have
> SA3 work with 5.005_03 (believe me, I tried).
> So, a few days before committing the SA3 update, I'll send a mail with the
> patch I plan to commit to maintainers of ports depending on SA264 for them
> to update/patch/whatever.

That seems like an awfully short transition period.  Why not
a separate 3.0 port for a while; with the old one being deprecated?
Then remove the 2.64 port once the dependant ports have been updated
and in the field long enough for some serious testing?



-Pat