Hello all again

>> to get symlinks under /usr/local (not sure why Postfix wants/needs
>> them under /usr/local instead of /usr).
> 
> Plese do not spread mis-information.

It was certainly not my intention to mislead anyone or spread misinformation, I 
was essentially doing what I understood/read from the Postfix website 
documentation — detailed below — and wanted to share the successful outcome 
with everyone.


>> The lib files were not installed into /usr/lib but /usr/lib64, I then ran:
>> 
>> ln -s /usr/include/sasl /usr/local/include/sasl
>> ln -s /usr/lib64/sasl2 /usr/local/lib64/sasl2
>> 
>> to get symlinks under /usr/local (not sure why Postfix wants/needs
>> them under /usr/local instead of /usr).
> 
> You don't need to do this, Postfix does not need these under
> "/usr/local", that's just an example, perhaps a more common
> location on some BSD-like systems.


Again re: the topic of (required?) directories I was following the Postfix 
website documentation (https://www.postfix.org/SASL_README.html#postfix_build) 
which states:

> Important
> If you install the Cyrus SASL libraries as per the default, you will have to 
> create a symlink […] /usr/lib/sasl2 -> /usr/local/lib/sasl2 for version 
> 2.1.x. 

the idea of using ‘/usr/local/include or lib’ instead of ‘/usr/include or lib’ 
continues with the example switches:

> -I/usr/local/include/sasl" AUXLIBS="-L/usr/local/lib -lsasl2"
 
All of which _seems_ to give the impression that Postfix wants/needs 
directories under `/usr/local/...‘ not ‘/usr/...’. So I thought OK, I’ll go 
along with what is being (explicitly) stated "you will have to create a 
symlink” and I did — for both /include & /lib(64).

My understanding from reading on Linux directories is that '/usr/...’ Is for 
system package installations and ‘/usr/local/...’ is for _user compiled_ 
packages. I installed the Cyrus packages from RHEL repos, not by compiling. 
When I checked the directories & files installed I saw that a) they were under 
‘/usr/...’ and b) the libs were in ‘/usr/lib64’ not ‘/usr/lib’ as my system is 
x86_64 

# rpm -ql cyrus-sasl-lib
...
/usr/lib64/libsasl2.so.3
/usr/lib64/libsasl2.so.3.0.0
/usr/lib64/sasl2
...

# rpm -ql cyrus-sasl-devel
...
/usr/include/sasl
/usr/include/sasl/hmac-md5.h
/usr/include/sasl/md5.h
...

So putting that together with the explicit instruction to symlink to 
‘/usr/local/...’ and the seeming preference for ‘/usr/local/...’ that’s what I 
did.

So, this means, if I understand correctly, that:

a) Creating symlinks are not necessary (at all)
b) Postfix does not specifically need/want files in ‘/etc/local/...'

Therefore in my case the 'make makefiles’ command could be:

make makefiles CCARGS="-DUSE_SASL_AUTH -DDEF_SERVER_SASL_TYPE=\\\"dovecot\\\" 
-DUSE_CYRUS_SASL -I/usr/include/sasl -DUSE_TLS" AUXLIBS="-lssl -lcrypto 
-L/usr/lib64 -lsasl2"

Is that correct?


> Those links may break after a software update
> 
>> to get symlinks under /usr/local (not sure why Postfix wants/needs
>> them under /usr/local instead of /usr).


Postfix or operating system software update?


- Patrick



> On 18 Feb 2026, at 22:37, Wietse Venema <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Patrick Starrenburg via Postfix-users:
>> dnf install cyrus-sasl
>> dnf install cyrus-sasl-lib
>> dnf install cyrus-sasl-devel
>> 
>> The lib files were not installed into /usr/lib but /usr/lib64, I then ran:
>> 
>> ln -s /usr/include/sasl /usr/local/include/sasl
>> ln -s /usr/lib64/sasl2 /usr/local/lib64/sasl2
> 
> Those links may break after a software update
> 
>> to get symlinks under /usr/local (not sure why Postfix wants/needs
>> them under /usr/local instead of /usr).
> 
> Plese do not spread mis-information.
> 
> You need to specify the correct location in  "make makefiles"
> command, specifically the part that says:
> 
>    AUXLIBS="-lssl -lcrypto -L/usr/local/lib64 -lsasl2"
> 
> Instead of -L/usr/local/lib64, specify the actual location.
> 
> Wietse

_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to