headers
Matthias Andree | 3 Jan 2004 02:01
Picon
Picon

Re: RPM: _build_exceptions

David Relson <relson <at> osagesoftware.com> writes:

> Note: "_build_exceptions" and "filter.sh" appear to be Mandrake
> specific.

Every vendor his own...

> As Gyepi points out, rpm will ignore unrecognized %define
> variables, so that's OK.  Also, since _I_ am the primary RPM builder,

OK.

> bogofilter-static-0.15.13.cvs-2.i586.rpm

(ignored)

> bogofilter-0.15.13.cvs-2.i586.rpm
>     rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
>     rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
>     bash  
>     libc.so.6  
>     libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)  
>     libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)  
>     libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)  
>     libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2)  
>     libdb-4.1.so  
>     libgslcblas.so.0  
>     libgsl.so.0  
>     libm.so.6  
>     libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |
headers
David Relson | 3 Jan 2004 02:22
Favicon

GSL & BerkeleyDB versions [was: RPM: _build_exceptions]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 02:01:31 +0100
Matthias Andree <matthias.andree <at> gmx.de> wrote:

> David Relson <relson <at> osagesoftware.com> writes:
...[snip]...

> You cannot change just the dependency, you'll have to compile
> bogofilter against BerkeleyDB.3.3 in the first place - if Mandrake
> doesn't have libdb-3.3.so, you can either install using the usual (not
> ready-to-go) procedure:

The version of BerkeleyDB that's included as a dependency for
bogofilter's rpms depends on whether I have libdb3.3-devel or
libdb4.1-devel installed (and they're mutually incompatible).   I _do_
think I can control _that_ dependency (though changing circumstances
will undoubtedly reveal any flaws in that belief).

> tar -xzvf db-3.3.11.tar.gz
> cd mumble
> patch <db-3.3.11.1
> patch <db-3.3.11.2
> cd build_unix
> ../dist/configure --with-uniquename
> make
> make install
> 
> and build --with-libdb-prefix=/usr/local/BerkeleyDB.3.3
> 
> As to GSL, I suggest, as before, to use --with-included-gsl - that
> rids us of any GSL dependencies and incompabilities. It costs 60 kB.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Matthias Andree | 3 Jan 2004 05:11
Picon
Picon

Re: GSL & BerkeleyDB versions

David Relson <relson <at> osagesoftware.com> writes:

> True we could do that.  Has the gsl 1.3 vs 1.4 problem (changed entry
> points but unchanged library versions) _really_ been a problem?  Has it
> affected users?  Or are we anticipating/avoiding a problem that hasn't
> happened?

Round-up in a different order:

When bogofilter is compiled with GSL 1.3, it will run with GSL 1.1 or
newer.

When bogofilter is compiled with GSL 1.4, it will run with GSL 1.4 or
newer.

The package manager on typical distributions has no chance of sorting
out the differences between the GSL versions because the SONAME (that is
what package managers, such as RPM, look for) is the same.

You have upgraded Mandrake to 9.2, and in this process, libgsl0 was
upgraded from 1.3 to 1.4 - this is where the trouble begins.

--

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95

---------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ: http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net/bogofilter-faq.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bogofilter-dev-unsubscribe <at> aotto.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
David Relson | 3 Jan 2004 05:40
Favicon

Re: GSL & BerkeleyDB versions

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:11:16 +0100
Matthias Andree <matthias.andree <at> gmx.de> wrote:

> David Relson <relson <at> osagesoftware.com> writes:
> 
> > True we could do that.  Has the gsl 1.3 vs 1.4 problem (changed
> > entry points but unchanged library versions) _really_ been a
> > problem?  Has it affected users?  Or are we anticipating/avoiding a
> > problem that hasn't happened?
> 
> Round-up in a different order:
> 
> When bogofilter is compiled with GSL 1.3, it will run with GSL 1.1 or
> newer.
> 
> When bogofilter is compiled with GSL 1.4, it will run with GSL 1.4 or
> newer.
> 
> The package manager on typical distributions has no chance of sorting
> out the differences between the GSL versions because the SONAME (that
> is what package managers, such as RPM, look for) is the same.
> 
> You have upgraded Mandrake to 9.2, and in this process, libgsl0 was
> upgraded from 1.3 to 1.4 - this is where the trouble begins.

So, the gsl-1.4 dependency can cause a problem when gsl-1.3 is
installed.  Since I'm building with gsl-1.4 and db4.1, should we list
both of them as rpm dependencies?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Matthias Andree | 3 Jan 2004 13:17
Picon
Picon

Re: GSL & BerkeleyDB versions

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004, David Relson wrote:

> So, the gsl-1.4 dependency can cause a problem when gsl-1.3 is
> installed.  Since I'm building with gsl-1.4 and db4.1, should we list
> both of them as rpm dependencies?

GSL: The GSL package name differs among distros. I'd really prefer
     --with-included-gsl for packages.

DB:  Just list the SONAME that you'll find with the readelf -d src/bogofilter
     or objdump -p src/bogofilter commands, that will do.

--

-- 
Matthias Andree

Encrypt your mail: my GnuPG key ID is 0x052E7D95

---------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ: http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net/bogofilter-faq.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bogofilter-dev-unsubscribe <at> aotto.com
For summary digest subscription: bogofilter-dev-digest-subscribe <at> aotto.com
For more commands, e-mail: bogofilter-dev-help <at> aotto.com
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
David Relson | 3 Jan 2004 14:13
Favicon

Re: GSL & BerkeleyDB versions

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 13:17:48 +0100
Matthias Andree <matthias.andree <at> gmx.de> wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004, David Relson wrote:
> 
> > So, the gsl-1.4 dependency can cause a problem when gsl-1.3 is
> > installed.  Since I'm building with gsl-1.4 and db4.1, should we
> > list both of them as rpm dependencies?
> 
> GSL: The GSL package name differs among distros. I'd really prefer
>      --with-included-gsl for packages.
> 
> DB:  Just list the SONAME that you'll find with the readelf -d
> src/bogofilter
>      or objdump -p src/bogofilter commands, that will do.

Matthias,

Go ahead and make the appropriate changes to bogofilter.spec.in :-)

David

---------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ: http://bogofilter.sourceforge.net/bogofilter-faq.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: bogofilter-dev-unsubscribe <at> aotto.com
For summary digest subscription: bogofilter-dev-digest-subscribe <at> aotto.com
For more commands, e-mail: bogofilter-dev-help <at> aotto.com
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
David Relson | 3 Jan 2004 15:26
Favicon

histogram of wordlist.db

Greetings,

Have you ever wondered what it would look like if you had a histogram of
the spamicity scores of all the tokens in your wordlist?  Mine looks
like:

score   count  pct  histogram
0.00   545757 47.13 ################################################
0.05     3099  0.27 #
0.10     3054  0.26 #
0.15     3128  0.27 #
0.20     4015  0.35 #
0.25     2112  0.18 #
0.30     4395  0.38 #
0.35     5326  0.46 #
0.40     2122  0.18 #
0.45     3178  0.27 #
0.50     2093  0.18 #
0.55    10681  0.92 #
0.60     2509  0.22 #
0.65     3163  0.27 #
0.70     6122  0.53 #
0.75     4926  0.43 #
0.80     3891  0.34 #
0.85     4324  0.37 #
0.90     5004  0.43 #
0.95   539119 46.56 ################################################
tot   1158018
hapaxes:  ham  359544 (31.05%), spam  376536 (32.52%)
   pure:  ham  542992 (46.89%), spam  535376 (46.23%)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Matthias Andree | 3 Jan 2004 16:01
Picon
Picon

Re: histogram of wordlist.db

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004, David Relson wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> Have you ever wondered what it would look like if you had a histogram of
> the spamicity scores of all the tokens in your wordlist?  Mine looks
> like:

The "bath tub curve".

What worries me more is the increasing amount of spam that bogofilter
cannot figure which uses random tokens from a dictionary - it's always
multipart/alternative with utter junk in the text/plain part and a bit
of "usual spam" with deliberate misspellings ("vigara" and things).
Until now, all these spams have an URL in common, a web address, that I
stuffed into my Postfix body_checks, but once they figure how to create
web aliases, this will no longer work.

I'm willing to forward some of the spam off-list.

The histogram of such spam looks like this:

X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500000,
    version=0.16.0.cvs.CVStime_20040102_163533
   int  cnt   prob  spamicity histogram
  0.00   95 0.006758 0.002128 ################################
  0.10   10 0.159268 0.007608 ####
  0.20   26 0.260562 0.030739 #########
  0.30   42 0.356437 0.078117 ###############
  0.40    0 0.000000 0.078117
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Relson | 3 Jan 2004 18:49
Favicon

Re: histogram of wordlist.db

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:01:25 +0100
Matthias Andree <matthias.andree <at> gmx.de> wrote:

> 
> I'm willing to forward some of the spam off-list.
> 
> The histogram of such spam looks like this:
> 
> X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500000,
>     version=0.16.0.cvs.CVStime_20040102_163533
>    int  cnt   prob  spamicity histogram
>   0.00   95 0.006758 0.002128 ################################
>   0.10   10 0.159268 0.007608 ####
>   0.20   26 0.260562 0.030739 #########
>   0.30   42 0.356437 0.078117 ###############
>   0.40    0 0.000000 0.078117 
>   0.50    0 0.000000 0.078117 
>   0.60   33 0.642097 0.149531 ############
>   0.70   33 0.740073 0.220945 ############
>   0.80   24 0.847833 0.276591 #########
>   0.90  143 0.980940 0.515557
>   ################################################

Matthias,

Have you thought about running bogotune?  A tuned set of parameters will
help bogofilter do a better job.  With my wordlist histogram, bogotune
recommends min_dev of 0.435 so the score is based on those tokens which
are very strongly hammish or spammish.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stefan Bellon | 3 Jan 2004 22:50
Picon

Re: histogram of wordlist.db

David Relson wrote:

> score   count  pct  histogram
> 0.00   545757 47.13 ################################################
> 0.05     3099  0.27 #
> 0.10     3054  0.26 #
> 0.15     3128  0.27 #
> 0.20     4015  0.35 #
> 0.25     2112  0.18 #
> 0.30     4395  0.38 #
> 0.35     5326  0.46 #
> 0.40     2122  0.18 #
> 0.45     3178  0.27 #
> 0.50     2093  0.18 #
> 0.55    10681  0.92 #
> 0.60     2509  0.22 #
> 0.65     3163  0.27 #
> 0.70     6122  0.53 #
> 0.75     4926  0.43 #
> 0.80     3891  0.34 #
> 0.85     4324  0.37 #
> 0.90     5004  0.43 #
> 0.95   539119 46.56 ################################################
> tot   1158018
> hapaxes:  ham  359544 (31.05%), spam  376536 (32.52%)
>    pure:  ham  542992 (46.89%), spam  535376 (46.23%)

Wow, mine looks indeed very similar:

score   count  pct  histogram
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane