victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com (Victor Duchovni) writes: > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 08:38:54PM +0200, Simon J Mudd wrote: > > > Others ask why not build from source. The simplicity of a single upgrade > > procedure and reproducibility make this more favourable the more boxes > > you have to manage. For those of us who have hundres of boxes to manage > > this makes life so much easier. > > My question was not "why use RPMs". It was: > > - Why use binary RPMs that are not supported by the underlying > distribution? > > The premise for the question was that either one wants supported binaries, > in which case, one really should use what the O/S vendor supports. Or one > (a more sophisticated user) wants the latest vendor unsupported release, > in which case, by all means still build an RPM, but pulling down binaries, > even from Simon who we all know and trust, seems risky.
That's fair enough. I spend little time now on postfix as it covers my needs and the original "itch" to have a vmailer/postfix rpm package went away a long time ago. > I, for one, would urge the more sophisticated users, who need the latest > release, to learn how to use/build source RPMs, and build the official Postfix > release via source RPM that resembles the vendor's support source RPM, > but uses a more recent Postfix version. Yes, it's also probably fair to say that many people should be able to rebuild the latest Fedora release. Fedora 10 provides 2.5.5 and that should be pretty easy to patch to get 2.6.0 running, if the upcoming Fedora 11 doesn't provide 2.6 already. Simon
