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
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
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I revised the first patch.
> P
Hi All,
I revised the first patch.
Please confirm contents.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- On Tue, 2011/6/7, 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 status" only if
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 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,
> 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] wrote:
> Hideo-san, i updated your postfix.patch2 the way i would improve it.
> any objections?
>
> cheers,
>
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 w
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*
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
Hi Hideo-san,
On Mon, Jun 06, 2011 at 01:36:01PM +0900, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> 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
In the la
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
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I send a patch in c
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
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I send a patch in
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
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 reg
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 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,
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
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.
>
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 p
> 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
20 matches
Mail list logo
