On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 04:05:26PM -0500, Tom Rivers wrote: > On 2/5/2015 15:58, Reindl Harald wrote: > >why in the world does SA need portreserve? > > To be honest, I'm not sure that SA is the package that needs it. It is > actually systemd that references it in the spamassassin.service file: SA needs portreserve exactly for the reason portreserve was written: SA assigned port is 783, and there's a risk portmap will hijack it. Missing dependency seems like packaging bug. Cleaner way would be to implement socket activation in spamd. I've looked into doing this. After looking into spamd I have no idea how to implement sock-act cleanly. -- Tomasz Torcz Morality must always be based on practicality. xmpp: zdzichubg@xxxxxxxxx -- Baron Vladimir Harkonnen -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
