Mailing List Archive

1 2 3 4 5 6  View All
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, David B Funk wrote:

> # spamassassin --version
> SpamAssassin version 3.3.1
> running on Perl version 5.10.0
>
>
> if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.010000
> body NON_588_COMPATIBLE_RE_SYNTAX /\w++/
> endif
>
> is silent (no errors, no warnings in a --lint)
>
> So it looks like it's perl version dependent.

Which doesn't help.

It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)

:(

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have to realize that people who run the government can and do
change. Our society and laws must assume that bad people -
criminals even - will run the government, at least part of the
time. -- John Gilmore
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 days until Bill of Rights day
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 12/01/2014 09:18 PM, Burnie wrote:
> On 12/01/2014 08:50 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Bob Proulx wrote:
>>
>>> $ spamassassin --version
>>> SpamAssassin version 3.3.2
>>> running on Perl version 5.14.2
>>>
>>> if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.010000
>>> meta PDS_FROM_2_EMAILS __PDS_FROM_2_EMAILS && !__VIA_ML &&
>>> !__VIA_RESIGNER
>>> endif

> A "preliminary" test here - on Perl 5.8.8 - gives the same warning in
> 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.4.0. So it might have to do with the Perl version.


just a quick followup after a bit more testing here
- by just upgrading perl on a vm
- perl 5.8.8 gives the warning in 3.3.1 - 3.4.0
- perl 5.10.1 doesn't


--
Bernt 'Burnie' Pettersen /// DoD#2345
<E-mail:burnie@dod.no> /// <URL:http://burnie.sh/>
- Creative brains need creative workhours! -
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
> It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
> solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think we have to
implement the perl_min_version function. Do you want me to take a stab
at it?
Regards,
KAM
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

> On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
>> solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>
> With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think we have to implement
> the perl_min_version function. Do you want me to take a stab at it?

Nah, it's in my head, I'll do it tonight.

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the twenty-two civilizations that have appeared in history,
nineteen of them collapsed when they reached the moral state the
United States is in now. -- Arnold Toynbee
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 days until Bill of Rights day
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

> On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
>> solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>
> With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think we have to implement
> the perl_min_version function. Do you want me to take a stab at it?

Do we want to be able to check every major perl version (i.e., define
perl_min_version_5010000, perl_min_version_5011000,
perl_min_version_5012000, perl_min_version_5013000,
perl_min_version_5014000, perl_min_version_5015000,
perl_min_version_5016000, etc.) ?


--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"They will be slaughtered as result of England's anti-gun laws
that concentrates power to the Government."
-- Shifty Powers (101 abn) observing British
subjects training to repel a German invasion
using rakes, hoes and pitchforks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 days until Bill of Rights day
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>
>>> It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
>>> solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>>
>> With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think we have to
>> implement the perl_min_version function. Do you want me to take a
>> stab at it?
>
> Do we want to be able to check every major perl version (i.e., define
> perl_min_version_5010000, perl_min_version_5011000,
> perl_min_version_5012000, perl_min_version_5013000,
> perl_min_version_5014000, perl_min_version_5015000,
> perl_min_version_5016000, etc.) ?
>
>
For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 5010000
test so I would stick with just that for now.

Regards,
KAM
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

> On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean
>> > > solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>> >
>> > With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think we have to
>> > implement the perl_min_version function. Do you want me to take a stab
>> > at it?
>>
>> Do we want to be able to check every major perl version (i.e., define
>> perl_min_version_5010000, perl_min_version_5011000,
>> perl_min_version_5012000, perl_min_version_5013000,
>> perl_min_version_5014000, perl_min_version_5015000,
>> perl_min_version_5016000, etc.) ?
>
> For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 5010000 test so
> I would stick with just that for now.

Ok.

https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7107

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our government should bear in mind the fact that the American
Revolution was touched off by the then-current government
attempting to confiscate firearms from the people.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 days until Bill of Rights day
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>
>> For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 5010000
>> test so I would stick with just that for now.
>
> Ok.
>
> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7107


Just FYI: The nested if example in the patch/doc will still
give a lint warning for perl < 5.10

if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} &
\p{Digit} ])/
endif
endif

Dec 2 03:53:48.550 [30251] warn: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric
in numeric ge (>=) at (eval 2521) line 2.



- IMHO, that single '+' character may be the single most annoying
character in SA for years? :-\

--
Bernt 'Burnie' Pettersen /// DoD#2345
<E-mail:burnie@dod.no> /// <URL:http://burnie.sh/>
- Creative brains need creative workhours! -
Re: Argument "perl version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 02/12/2014 10:24, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

> On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>
>> It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only clean solution is can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>
> With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think we have to implement the perl_min_version function. Do you want me to take a stab at it?
> Regards,
> KAM

5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything older
have far greater issues :)

(says the guy running a few slackware 13.1 boxes with 5.10.1 hehe but
theyll join the 14 series this Christmas when I can take them offline to
upgrade em, even -current is useing a 12 month old 5.18.1)
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 12/1/2014 11:57 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 02/12/2014 10:24, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>> On 12/1/2014 6:06 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> It looks like as long as we support perl < 5.10.0 then the only
>>> clean solution is
>>> can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>> With perl versions so low in so many distros, I think we have to implement the perl_min_version function. Do you want me to take a stab at it?
>> Regards,
>> KAM
>
> 5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything older
> have far greater issues :)
>
> (says the guy running a few slackware 13.1 boxes with 5.10.1 hehe but
> theyll join the 14 series this Christmas when I can take them offline
> to upgrade em, even -current is useing a 12 month old 5.18.1)
>
There is a fairly consistent streak in some distros to backport patches
to older versions rather than move the version forward. 5.8.8 is in
pretty far spread use from my knowledge.

Regards,
KAM
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
Hello Noel,

Tuesday, December 2, 2014, 4:57:08 AM, you wrote:

NB> 5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything older have far greater issues

CentOS 5.11 doesn't go EOL until 2017 and it has 5.8.8

--
Best regards,
Niamh mailto:niamh@fullbore.co.uk
Re: Argument "perl version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
jdow skrev den 2014-12-01 23:56:

> I just added the following to my user-prefs file:
> if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.010000
> meta PDS_FROM_2_EMAILS __PDS_FROM_2_EMAILS && !__VIA_ML &&
> !__VIA_RESIGNER
> endif
>
> No error here SL6.6, perl 5.10.1 and SA 3.3.1.

good, but 3.4.2 does not exists yet :)
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:

> On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>
>> > On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> >
>> > For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 5010000
>> > test so I would stick with just that for now.
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7107
>
> Just FYI: The nested if example in the patch/doc will still
> give a lint warning for perl < 5.10
>
> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
> if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
> body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} & \p{Digit}
> ])/
> endif
> endif
>
> Dec 2 03:53:48.550 [30251] warn: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric in
> numeric ge (>=) at (eval 2521) line 2.

ARGH!

Well, I suppose we're back to hoping the distro maintainers accept the
perl_version patch for their LTR release versions of older SA releases.

> - IMHO, that single '+' character may be the single most annoying character
> in SA for years? :-\

indeed.

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Men by their constitutions are naturally divided in to two parties:
1. Those who fear and distrust the people and wish to draw all
powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who
identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them,
cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not
the most wise, depository of the public interests.
-- Thomas Jefferson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13 days until Bill of Rights day
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>> > > For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 5010000
>>> > test so I would stick with just that for now.
>>>
>>> Ok.
>>>
>>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7107
>>
>> Just FYI: The nested if example in the patch/doc will still
>> give a lint warning for perl < 5.10
>>
>> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>> if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
>> body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} & \p{Digit} ])/
>> endif
>> endif
>>
>> Dec 2 03:53:48.550 [30251] warn: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric in
>> numeric ge (>=) at (eval 2521) line 2.
>
> ARGH!
>
> Well, I suppose we're back to hoping the distro maintainers accept the
> perl_version patch for their LTR release versions of older SA releases.
>
>> - IMHO, that single '+' character may be the single most annoying character in
>> SA for years? :-\
>
> indeed.

Does this show the error?

if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
&& version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} & \p{Digit} ])/
endif

Perhaps the same trick can (almost) work again.

{^_^}
RE: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Niamh Holding [mailto:niamh@fullbore.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 7:27 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric
>
>
> Hello Noel,
>
> Tuesday, December 2, 2014, 4:57:08 AM, you wrote:
>
> NB> 5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything
> older have far greater issues
>
> CentOS 5.11 doesn't go EOL until 2017 and it has 5.8.8
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Niamh mailto:niamh@fullbore.co.uk

Which brings up the question, what is spamassassin being developed on? I like long term releases for obvious reasons - upgrading servers every year or two gets old. But it's nice to match the tool to the job, so it might be instructive to know what the development environment looks like so when upgrading or installing a new server one can match it, more or less...

...Kevin
--
Kevin Miller
Network/email Administrator, CBJ MIS Dept.
155 South Seward Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: (907) 586-0242, Fax: (907) 586-4500
Registered Linux User No: 307357
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote:
> On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>> > > For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the
>>>> 5010000
>>>> > test so I would stick with just that for now.
>>>>
>>>> Ok.
>>>>
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7107
>>>
>>> Just FYI: The nested if example in the patch/doc will still
>>> give a lint warning for perl < 5.10
>>>
>>> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>>> if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
>>> body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} &
>>> \p{Digit} ])/
>>> endif
>>> endif
>>>
>>> Dec 2 03:53:48.550 [30251] warn: Argument "perl_version" isn't
>>> numeric in
>>> numeric ge (>=) at (eval 2521) line 2.
>>
>> ARGH!
>>
>> Well, I suppose we're back to hoping the distro maintainers accept the
>> perl_version patch for their LTR release versions of older SA releases.
>>
>>> - IMHO, that single '+' character may be the single most annoying
>>> character in
>>> SA for years? :-\
>>
>> indeed.
>
> Does this show the error?
>
> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
> && version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
> body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} &
> \p{Digit} ])/
> endif
>
> Perhaps the same trick can (almost) work again.
>
> {^_^}

There is no need for the other checks.

if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000) is enough
since it doesn't exist until 3.4.1.

If you are locally using SA trunk and writing your own rules that
require certain perl_versions, you can use the if perl_version >= XYZ
logic without concern.

regards,
KAM

--
*Kevin A. McGrail*
President

Peregrine Computer Consultants Corporation
3927 Old Lee Highway, Suite 102-C
Fairfax, VA 22030-2422

http://www.pccc.com/

703-359-9700 x50 / 800-823-8402 (Toll-Free)
703-798-0171 (wireless)
KMcGrail@PCCC.com <mailto:kmcgrail@pccc.com>
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 2014-12-02 12:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
> On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote:
>> On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>>>>> > > For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the 5010000
>>>>> > test so I would stick with just that for now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7107
>>>>
>>>> Just FYI: The nested if example in the patch/doc will still
>>>> give a lint warning for perl < 5.10
>>>>
>>>> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>>>> if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
>>>> body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} & \p{Digit} ])/
>>>> endif
>>>> endif
>>>>
>>>> Dec 2 03:53:48.550 [30251] warn: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric in
>>>> numeric ge (>=) at (eval 2521) line 2.
>>>
>>> ARGH!
>>>
>>> Well, I suppose we're back to hoping the distro maintainers accept the
>>> perl_version patch for their LTR release versions of older SA releases.
>>>
>>>> - IMHO, that single '+' character may be the single most annoying character in
>>>> SA for years? :-\
>>>
>>> indeed.
>>
>> Does this show the error?
>>
>> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>> && version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
>> body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} & \p{Digit} ])/
>> endif
>>
>> Perhaps the same trick can (almost) work again.
>>
>> {^_^}
>
> There is no need for the other checks.
>
> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000) is enough since it
> doesn't exist until 3.4.1.
>
> If you are locally using SA trunk and writing your own rules that require
> certain perl_versions, you can use the if perl_version >= XYZ logic without concern.
>
> regards,
> KAM
>
> --
> *Kevin A. McGrail*
> President
>
> Peregrine Computer Consultants Corporation
> 3927 Old Lee Highway, Suite 102-C
> Fairfax, VA 22030-2422
>
> http://www.pccc.com/
>
> 703-359-9700 x50 / 800-823-8402 (Toll-Free)
> 703-798-0171 (wireless)
> KMcGrail@PCCC.com <mailto:kmcgrail@pccc.com>
>

Perhaps test it just the same to see if the basic technique works? I suspect it
should. That way it may be a messy way to handle the problem without falling
into even nastier messes.

{o.o}
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 12/02/2014 09:10 PM, jdow wrote:
> Does this show the error?
>
> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
> && version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
> body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} & \p{Digit} ])/
> endif

It doesn't show the warning.

But the line starting with '&&' will generate a more severe warning
when the first line is 'true'. (SA lint exits with code 1)


Testing perl 5.16 / SA 3.4.0:

if version >= 3.003001
&& version >= 3.004000 && perl_version >= 5.018000
body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_10 /\w++/
endif

Dec 2 22:14:35.776 [31075] warn: config: failed to parse line,
skipping, in "/etc/mail/spamassassin/local.cf": && version > 3.004000 &&
perl_version >= 5.018000
Dec 2 22:14:35.801 [31075] warn: lint: 1 issues detected, please rerun
with debug enabled for more information


- And if you put it all in one line with perl < 5.10, SA lint will
complain about perl_version

--
Bernt 'Burnie' Pettersen /// DoD#2345
<E-mail:burnie@dod.no> /// <URL:http://burnie.sh/>
- Creative brains need creative workhours! -
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
jdow wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
> > Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > I am hoping this won't make you gun-shy from continuing your fine
> > > work on the project. Please don't let this minor bump in the road
> > > discourage you from future work. That would be a tragedy for the
> > > project and for the users.
> >
> > Oh, it won't do that.
> >
> > It's just embarrassing as all hell to publicly step on my sword in
> > this manner.
>
> Stepped in a "richard", you did. (Read Terry Pratchett's "Dodger" if you
> must to get the term's meaning and origin.)

I don't want to pour salt on the wound but if you can laugh at it then
all is good. Laughter is the best medicine! I keep thinking of this
classic Dilbert. I have been there myself too many times. :-)

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1995-08-18/

Bob
Re: Argument "perl version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 02/12/2014 23:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

>> 5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything older have far greater issues :)
>>
>> (says the guy running a few slackware 13.1 boxes with 5.10.1 hehe but theyll join the 14 series this Christmas when I can take them offline to upgrade em, even -current is useing a 12 month old 5.18.1)
> There is a fairly consistent streak in some distros to backport patches to older versions rather than move the version forward. 5.8.8 is in pretty far spread use from my knowledge.

Likely in antique versions of debian and Redhat (which again will have
bigger issues), there surely must come a time when the line is drawn and
say - you're unsupported from this_date, give them plenty of notice, I
think 12 months notice is plenty of time for planned upgrades or devise
workarounds, SA is not updated all that often, so a next major release
would be about 12 months away, short of a serious exploit found anyway,
so there's plenty of time for lazy admins to do what they actually get
paid to do :)
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, jdow wrote:

> On 2014-12-02 12:15, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> On 12/2/2014 3:10 PM, jdow wrote:
>> > On 2014-12-02 10:10, John Hardin wrote:
>> > > On Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Burnie wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On 12/02/2014 03:12 AM, John Hardin wrote:
>> > > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > On 12/1/2014 8:03 PM, John Hardin wrote:
>> > > > > > > For now, the only issue that has ever arisen in years is the
>> > > > > > > 5010000
>> > > > > > test so I would stick with just that for now.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Ok.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7107
>> > > >
>> > > > Just FYI: The nested if example in the patch/doc will still
>> > > > give a lint warning for perl < 5.10
>> > > >
>> > > > if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>> > > > if version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
>> > > > body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} &
>> > > > \p{Digit} ])/
>> > > > endif
>> > > > endif
>> > > >
>> > > > Dec 2 03:53:48.550 [30251] warn: Argument "perl_version" isn't
>> > > > numeric in
>> > > > numeric ge (>=) at (eval 2521) line 2.
>> > >
>> > > ARGH!
>> > >
>> > > Well, I suppose we're back to hoping the distro maintainers accept the
>> > > perl_version patch for their LTR release versions of older SA
>> > > releases.
>> > >
>> > > > - IMHO, that single '+' character may be the single most annoying
>> > > > character in
>> > > > SA for years? :-\
>> > >
>> > > indeed.
>> >
>> > Does this show the error?
>> >
>> > if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000)
>> > && version > 3.004001 && perl_version >= 5.018000
>> > body INVALID_RE_SYNTAX_IN_PERL_BEFORE_5_18 /(?[ \p{Thai} &
>> > \p{Digit} ])/
>> > endif
>> >
>> > Perhaps the same trick can (almost) work again.
>> >
>> > {^_^}
>>
>> There is no need for the other checks.
>>
>> if can(Mail::SpamAssassin::Conf::perl_min_version_5010000) is enough since
>> it
>> doesn't exist until 3.4.1.
>>
>> If you are locally using SA trunk and writing your own rules that require
>> certain perl_versions, you can use the if perl_version >= XYZ logic
>> without concern.
>>
>> regards,
>> KAM
>
> Perhaps test it just the same to see if the basic technique works? I suspect
> it should. That way it may be a messy way to handle the problem without
> falling into even nastier messes.

I suspect it will fail just the same. I think it's something related to
shortcut logic in evals in 5.8.x, but I couldn't find anything in the
various perl release notes that looked relevant to that.

--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhardin@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhardin@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Running away is the coward's way out of a war;
appeasement is the coward's way into a war. -- Thorax
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
13 days until Bill of Rights day
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 12/2/2014 5:50 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 02/12/2014 23:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>>> 5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything
>>> older have far greater issues :)
>>>
>>> (says the guy running a few slackware 13.1 boxes with 5.10.1 hehe
>>> but theyll join the 14 series this Christmas when I can take them
>>> offline to upgrade em, even -current is useing a 12 month old 5.18.1)
>>>
>> There is a fairly consistent streak in some distros to backport
>> patches to older versions rather than move the version forward. 5.8.8
>> is in pretty far spread use from my knowledge.
>>
>>
> Likely in antique versions of debian and Redhat (which again will have
> bigger issues), there surely must come a time when the line is drawn
> and say - you're unsupported from this_date, give them plenty of
> notice, I think 12 months notice is plenty of time for planned
> upgrades or devise workarounds, SA is not updated all that often, so a
> next major release would be about 12 months away, short of a serious
> exploit found anyway, so there's plenty of time for lazy admins to do
> what they actually get paid to do :)
>
Well, I also can't justify requiring a newer version of Perl just for
one regexp.

Regards,
KAM
Re: Argument "perl version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 03/12/2014 12:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:

>> Likely in antique versions of debian and Redhat (which again will have bigger issues), there surely must come a time when the line is drawn and say - you're unsupported from this_date, give them plenty of notice, I think 12 months notice is plenty of time for planned upgrades or devise workarounds, SA is not updated all that often, so a next major release would be about 12 months away, short of a serious exploit found anyway, so there's plenty of time for lazy admins to do what they actually get paid to do :)
> Well, I also can't justify requiring a newer version of Perl just for one regexp.
>
> Regards,
> KAM

Sure, if that was truly the case nor would I, but if you are running
that old perl, there is plenty of stuff thats outdated, and not all of
the goodness gets backports, not just with perl, but with most other
things.
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
On 12/2/2014 10:59 PM, Noel Butler wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2014 12:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>>> Likely in antique versions of debian and Redhat (which again will
>>> have bigger issues), there surely must come a time when the line is
>>> drawn and say - you're unsupported from this_date, give them plenty
>>> of notice, I think 12 months notice is plenty of time for planned
>>> upgrades or devise workarounds, SA is not updated all that often, so
>>> a next major release would be about 12 months away, short of a
>>> serious exploit found anyway, so there's plenty of time for lazy
>>> admins to do what they actually get paid to do :)
>>>
>> Well, I also can't justify requiring a newer version of Perl just for
>> one regexp.
>
> Sure, if that was truly the case nor would I, but if you are running
> that old perl, there is plenty of stuff thats outdated, and not all of
> the goodness gets backports, not just with perl, but with most other
> things.
>
I can't fight every windmill and changing how distros work re: versions
of perl is one I choose not to battle.

Regards,
KAM
Re: Argument "perl_version" isn't numeric [ In reply to ]
What I haven't noticed anyone else mention is that I was getting that
error message even though the perl on my Ubuntu 14.04 system is 5.18.2.

--
Jim Clausing
GIAC GSE #26, GREM-Gold, CISSP
GPG fingerprint = 4780 13A4 F33E BF4E AE86 0D64 0EFD B3E3 03BF 407A

On or about Tue, 2 Dec 2014, Noel Butler pontificated thusly:

>
>
> On 02/12/2014 23:10, Kevin A. McGrail wrote:
>
>>> 5.10 is only what, six years old? Surely anyone running anything older have far greater issues :)
>>>
>>> (says the guy running a few slackware 13.1 boxes with 5.10.1 hehe but theyll join the 14 series this Christmas when I can take them offline to upgrade em, even -current is useing a 12 month old 5.18.1)
>> There is a fairly consistent streak in some distros to backport patches to older versions rather than move the version forward. 5.8.8 is in pretty far spread use from my knowledge.
>
> Likely in antique versions of debian and Redhat (which again will have
> bigger issues), there surely must come a time when the line is drawn and
> say - you're unsupported from this_date, give them plenty of notice, I
> think 12 months notice is plenty of time for planned upgrades or devise
> workarounds, SA is not updated all that often, so a next major release
> would be about 12 months away, short of a serious exploit found anyway,
> so there's plenty of time for lazy admins to do what they actually get
> paid to do :)
>
>

1 2 3 4 5 6  View All