Bug 787 - RFE: Split off spamc into separate, autoconf distro
Summary: RFE: Split off spamc into separate, autoconf distro
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Spamassassin
Classification: Unclassified
Component: spamc/spamd (show other bugs)
Version: SVN Trunk (Latest Devel Version)
Hardware: All All
: P4 enhancement
Target Milestone: Undefined
Assignee: SpamAssassin Developer Mailing List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2002-08-29 02:00 UTC by Matt Sergeant
Modified: 2004-08-27 10:04 UTC (History)
1 user (show)


Attachment Type Modified Status Actions Submitter/CLA Status
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Matt Sergeant 2002-08-29 02:00:21 UTC 
For 2.5 (or 3) I think we should split off spamc/spamd into a separate
distribution. I don't like perl modules running things like configure, and I
think it would be better served as a separate project.

Alternatively we should use the built in perl hints system instead of configure.
Comment 1 Justin Mason 2002-09-04 06:03:02 UTC 
this is a tricky one.  spamc is C, requires autoconf; spamd is Perl,
requires Makefile.PL.  probably would be best to split them off,
and just make the autoconf script search for the installed SA modules
using "find" or similar.

re: built-in perl hints: that's the problem; perl's C compilation args
and libs assume that *you* built the perl binary, and have all the
libs it required to build, installed.  not always the case on many
platforms.  I talked to a few people at LBW who'd run into this bug.

modding down priority.
Comment 2 Matt Sergeant 2002-09-04 06:09:30 UTC 
Subject: Re: [SAdev]  Split off spamc/spamd

bugzilla-daemon@hughes-family.org wrote:
> this is a tricky one.  spamc is C, requires autoconf; spamd is Perl,
> requires Makefile.PL.  probably would be best to split them off,
> and just make the autoconf script search for the installed SA modules
> using "find" or similar.

OK, how about changing it to not require autoconf then? What exactly are 
we using autoconf for? If it's fairly simple needs we can use the same 
technique I use in XML::LibXML (build a small XS module, which performs 
the same checks as you would building a small C stub like autoconf does).

Sorry, but I'm very anal about a Makefile.PL running something like 
autoconf - I just don't like it.

Matt.
Comment 3 Duncan Findlay 2002-12-13 13:53:31 UTC 
Perhaps we should package spamassassin and Mail::SpamAssassin on it's own for
CPAN. If people want spamd/spamc, they can download the tarball, or get a decent
operating system. (i.e. Debian) :-)

I don't see this happening for 2.50
Comment 4 Justin Mason 2003-01-26 08:58:39 UTC 
Retitled bug to be clearer about what we should do.  Splitting off just
spamc would help in that (a) Makefile.PL does not have to worry about building
standalone non-XS C code, (b) VMS and win32 users don't get build errors,
(c) we don't need autoconf scripts in sa distro, (d) easier for third parties
to build spamc-protocol support into their apps.
Comment 5 Malte S. Stretz 2004-02-15 13:30:38 UTC 
Updated meta data
Comment 6 Justin Mason 2004-02-28 16:26:09 UTC 
would be nice to do this for 3.0.0.
Comment 7 Duncan Findlay 2004-03-12 18:18:25 UTC 
This is pretty much done isn't it? To finish, all we'd need to do is not call
configure.pl from Makefile, which may not be necessary.
Comment 8 Daniel Quinlan 2004-08-27 18:04:32 UTC 
I don't believe anything needs to change from how this is done in 3.0.0-rc2.
I'm just going to close this as WORKSFORME.