On 09/08/11 10:34, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
On 09/08/2011 04:49 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
do not apply a patch even if you apply this patch, there is not the big
problem.
I am lacking in my explanation, and I'm sorry.
ok. i just updated my pull request.
Hi Raoul,
Hi Florian,
Thank you for the change of the repository.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Thu, 2011/9/8, Florian Haas f.g.h...@gmx.net wrote:
On 09/08/11 10:34, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
On 09/08/2011 04:49 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
do not apply a patch even if
hi Hideo-san!
On 09/07/2011 01:50 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
However, my patch made a mistake.
I do not seem to get the result of postfix status.
It is necessary to watch log of postfix in the details of the problem
after all.
Therefore, I withdraw the patch of
Hi Raoul,
does it hurt if we leave this patch in? i do not see any problem with
that code.
Even if you do not apply a patch even if you apply this patch, there is not the
big problem.
I am lacking in my explanation, and I'm sorry.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Wed, 2011/9/7, Raoul
On 06/16/2011 05:48 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
The postfix ra worked well.
thanks for testing my ra. i'll check the ra and will then issue a
pull request.
However, my patch made a mistake.
I do not seem to get the result of postfix status.
It is necessary to watch log of postfix
Hi Raoul,
thanks for testing my ra. i'll check the ra and will then issue a
pull request.
Okay.
We hope that a correction is included in the next release of the resource agent.
However, my patch made a mistake.
I do not seem to get the result of postfix status.
It is necessary to
On 06/15/2011 04:19 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi Raoul,
to my knowledge, the ra's output is logged by pacemaker.
moreover, postfix logs to the mail facility itself.
what are the reasons for separately capturing and logging
all output?
When a problem occurred, the output of
Hi Hideo-san!
On 06/15/2011 10:53 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi Raoul,
Thank you for comment.
please test the postfix ra from my repository:
https://github.com/raoulbhatia/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/postfix
there is a minor issue regarding probes and a resulting
Hi Raoul,
I'm sorry.
I was weak in English, and it confused you.
please refetch one last time from
https://github.com/raoulbhatia/resource-agents/blob/master/heartbeat/postfix
i think i got the probing issue fixed!
I confirm movement and will inform it of a result tomorrow.
Best Regards,
Hi Raoul,
I confirmed movement of postfix in the next environment.
* RHEL5 - postfix 2.3.3
* RHEL6 - postfix 2.6.6
The postfix ra worked well.
However, my patch made a mistake.
I do not seem to get the result of postfix status.
It is necessary to watch log of postfix in the details of the
Hi Raoul,
to my knowledge, the ra's output is logged by pacemaker.
moreover, postfix logs to the mail facility itself.
what are the reasons for separately capturing and logging
all output?
When a problem occurred, the output of detailed log helps an operator.
In addition, pacemaker
On 06/07/2011 04:16 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi All,
I revised the first patch.
Please confirm contents.
hi!
thanks. i'm currently checking and applying those patches step-by-step.
thanks,
raoul
--
DI (FH)
On 07.06.2011 04:40, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi All,
I contribute my last patch.(patch3)
This is a patch for the sources which applied patch 1.
It is the patch which output the details of the error in log.
hi!
to my knowledge, the ra's output is logged by pacemaker.
moreover,
Hi Raoul,
Thank you for the merge of the patch.
to my knowledge, the ra's output is logged by pacemaker.
moreover, postfix logs to the mail facility itself.
what are the reasons for separately capturing and logging
all output?
When a problem occurred, the output of detailed log helps an
On 06/06/2011 05:08 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
The next patch supports a loop of the waiting of the start processing
successively.
The start processing revised it like other resource agents to wait on for
start.
hi!
personally, i would do the sleep 1 at the beginning as, in my
Hi Hideo-san!
On 06/06/2011 04:51 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
Hi All,
I send a patch in conjunction with the status processing.
It is made the following modifications.
* Carry out status processing in a version judgment
i think we could safely do the kill -s 0 for *any*
Hideo-san, i updated your postfix.patch2 the way i would improve it.
any objections?
cheers,
raoul
--
DI (FH) Raoul Bhatia M.Sc. email. r.bha...@ipax.at
Technischer Leiter
IPAX - Aloy Bhatia Hava OG
Hi Raoul,
Hideo-san, i updated your postfix.patch2 the way i would improve it.
any objections?
No.
Thanks!
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Mon, 2011/6/6, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] r.bha...@ipax.at wrote:
Hideo-san, i updated your postfix.patch2 the way i would improve it.
any objections?
Hi Dejan,
Thank you for comment.
In the latest version of ocf-shellfuncs there is some support for
version checks.
I did not know that there was the check handling of version in new
ocf-shellfuncs.
I renew a patch to use the processing.
Thanks.
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Mon, 2011/6/6, Dejan
Hi Raoul,
Thank you for comment.
i think we could safely do the kill -s 0 for *any*
version and call postfix status only if available.
I think so.
However, I do not know a lot about postfix so.
I want the opinion of the detailed person.
btw. quickly looking at your patch, i spotted 1
Hi All,
I revised the first patch.
Please confirm contents.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Tue, 2011/6/7, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
wrote:
Hi Raoul,
Thank you for comment.
i think we could safely do the kill -s 0 for *any*
version and call postfix
Hi All,
I contribute my last patch.(patch3)
This is a patch for the sources which applied patch 1.
It is the patch which output the details of the error in log.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Tue, 2011/6/7, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
wrote:
Hi All,
I
Hi All,
I send a patch in conjunction with the status processing.
It is made the following modifications.
* Carry out status processing in a version judgment
* Change of the parameter check
* Error log when status processing failed
* Value set of the ret variable
I send the patch of other
Hi All,
The next patch supports a loop of the waiting of the start processing
successively.
The start processing revised it like other resource agents to wait on for start.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Mon, 2011/6/6, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
wrote:
Hi
Hi All,
Sorry
+if [ ${ver_str[0]} -le 2 -a ${ver_str[1]} -le 5 ]; then
I missed.
+if [ ${ver_str[0]} -lt 2 -o ${ver_str[0]} -eq 2 -a ${ver_str[1]} -lt 5 ];
then
Thanks.
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Mon, 2011/6/6, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp
wrote:
Hi
Hi All,
We found a problem in the resource agent of postfix.
*Please* don't reply to an old thread if you mean to start a new one,
hijacking threads just confuses everyone.
The resource agent of postfix carries out /usr/sbin/postfix in status
parameter, but this is not available in old
Hi Florian,
*Please* don't reply to an old thread if you mean to start a new one,
hijacking threads just confuses everyone.
All right.
Thanks!
I believe this has been addressed in the latest patch set that was
merged a couple of days ago; please try to reproduce the problem with
the
Hi!
On 06/03/2011 09:40 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
I believe this has been addressed in the latest patch set that was
merged a couple of days ago; please try to reproduce the problem with
the postfix RA from upstream git before you start working on your own
patch. Thanks.
OK.
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:34:38AM +0200, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
Hi!
On 06/03/2011 09:40 AM, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
I believe this has been addressed in the latest patch set that was
merged a couple of days ago; please try to reproduce the problem with
the postfix RA
On 06/03/2011 11:45 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
Regressions are bad. You have to keep in mind that not everybody
runs the latest release of postfix. This really needs to be fixed
before the release.
it's no regression but has been like that since the initial release.
see commit e7af463d or
Hi Dejan,
Hi Raoul,
Thank you for comment.
I investigated some points.
The status command seems to be supported by 2.5.0 version.
The data_directory parameter seems to be supported by 2.5.0 version, too.
Get the version of postfix by postconf -h mail_version command.
Regressions are bad. You
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 12:03:20PM +0200, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
On 06/03/2011 11:45 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
Regressions are bad. You have to keep in mind that not everybody
runs the latest release of postfix. This really needs to be fixed
before the release.
it's no regression
32 matches
Mail list logo
