On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 01:41:35 +0100 mouss <mo...@ml.netoyen.net> articulated:
> Le 05/02/2011 00:34, Joe a écrit : > > On 02/04/2011 03:13 PM, mouss wrote: > >> Le 04/02/2011 20:42, Joe a écrit : > >>> I always try to work with the package management system to keep > >>> things sane and manageable if possible. postfix-2.7 and 2.8 rpms > >>> and srpms are available for centos from several sources. It's > >>> pretty easy to replace the ancient postfix package with a fairly > >>> up to date one, and it's one of the first things I'd do after a > >>> centos or rhel install. > >>> > >>> I see that rhel 6 comes with postfix-2.6.6 which is better, but > >>> still a bit conservative. Not all of the rhel/centos packages are > >>> out of date, but they do seem quite sluggish about making any MTA > >>> changes. > >>> > >>> FWIW debian/ubuntu seem to be much more current on the versions of > >>> postfix they ship, but even then it's not a bad idea to install a > >>> more recent package than what they ship with. > >>> > >>> Joe > >> guys, we at the bsd balcony find it funny to see linuxers fighting > >> each other with "my distro is better" and "I can compile faster > >> than you", and more funnily "I was born to destroy bill gates > >> empire". > > > > I'm at a loss as to where you think you're seeing a fight. > > maybe I took it the way I should not, but reading the messages again > doesn't help me change my mind. anyway, let's skip... > > what I mean is: there's no point complaining about why a distro has > old packages. if you use a system/distro, you need to take into > account both the system and the packages. if you chose linux because > "there's nothing but linux", then chose a distro because "it's the > best", then don't complain about its packages. before you do, try to > contribute. > > > I merely > > mentioned options for upgrading postix packages on various linux > > distros. I've used all the above mentioned distros and more. I have > > not indicated a preference for one over the other, I consider them > > all useful. > > > > so do I. I may have taken into account other discussions (from other > threads) where people complain about the package age in various > distros. I don't consider upgrading to the latest software, be that > postfix or apache, to be my religion. I certainly use the latest > postfix version on freebsd, even more recent than what the port > provides (hey Sahil!), but that's because I know how bsd pkgsrc/ports > work and because it's easy. for example, here's how to use the > 2.9-20110120 on freebsd: > > # cd /usr/ports/mail/ > # cp -r postfix-current postfix-last > # cd postfix-last > > -> change the DISTVERSION in Makefile > # vi Makefile > .. > DISTVERSION= 2.9-20110120 > .. > > -> download the tarball > # make fetch > > -> compute sha1 & size and update distinfo: > # vi distinfo > SHA256 (postfix/postfix-2.9-20110120.tar.gz) = > 88dae90c52aa7eabf2a6dd3a9c4364240062419ff6fd2a814f4910a0e991e7a7 > SIZE (postfix/postfix-2.9-20110120.tar.gz) = 3638193 > > -> update pkg-plist to add tlsproxy (so that a pkg_delete removes all > the stuff) > # diff pkg-plist ../postfix-current/ > 37d36 > < libexec/postfix/tlsproxy > 234d232 > < %%PORTDOCS%%%%DOCSDIR%%/tlsproxy.8.html > > -> build and install > # make install clean I have done the same thing with other packages on FreeBSD as well. From what I can tell, the only reason that the latest 2.9x release is not in the ports system is because of FreeBSD's retarded port freeze pending the release of the updated OS. I would definitely NOT blame Sahil's for this minor inconvenience or delay. He did get the 2.8 version out almost as soon as it was officially released. I believe that I can safely say that he beat every other distro out of the gate. He does a magnificent job of maintaining the Postfix ports. -- Jerry ✌ postfix-u...@seibercom.net _____________________________________________________________________ TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html
