On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 07:26:34PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > > I noticed that Postfix V#2.6.0 is now out. Does anybody know where to get
> > > RPM files? GOOGLE did not help.
> >
> > If the purpose of using RPM files is to facilitate binary updates from
> > distribution servers, wait until *your distribution* upgrades to a newer
> > supported version of Postfix.
> >
> > If you incorporate your own Postfix into your O/S, why download some
> > random stranger's binary RPM?
> >
> > Is there a real use case for binary RPMs not maintained by the
> > distribution release engineering teams? What's wrong with the Postfix
> > source, which is typically less likely to have ill-advised patches
> > dropped into it?
>
> Many platform-specific features are useful, but they haven't been
> adopted into the official release primarily because of lack of
> cycles (the code needs to be tested, and I can't realistically
> build every release on every platform).
Sure, this fits in under the "distribution supported" use-case... What
puzzles me to some degree is the desire to find/install RPMs not supported
by the distribution...
Yes, some of the better distribution supported patches are not ill-advised.
But occasionally, one gets something along the lines of the Debian OpenSSL
fiasco (notably the Debian *Postfix* patches have been pretty good, and
historically RedHat was adding rather questionable changes to Postfix)
Fortunately, some of the more common unwise patches have been
"discouraged" by defensive changes in the Postfix source code...
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
