[An on-line version of this announcement will be available at
http://www.postfix.org/announcements/postfix-2.11.3.html]
THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE OF PATCHES THAT WERE RELEASED ON OCTOBER
13, 2014. THE HEADER PREPEND PATCH IN THAT SET IS REVERTED AND
REPLACED WITH A COMPLETE SOLUTION.
Bugfix for Pos
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 04:12:00AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> You'll find that 2.11.2 also no longer compiles.
>
> Nothing between 2.11.2 and 2.11.3 changed in this regard. Did you
> upgrade your OS (to Yosemite)? Or upgrade your compiler? Your
> /usr/include/stdlib.h no longer compiles w
> On 20 Oct 2014, at 3:12 pm, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:00:01PM +1100, James Brown wrote:
>
>>> * Portability fix for MacOS X 10.7.x (Darwin 11.x) build procedure.
>>
>> Doesn't seem to work for me. :-(
>
> Don't blame the messenger
I’m definitely not! Sorry if
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 03:00:01PM +1100, James Brown wrote:
> > * Portability fix for MacOS X 10.7.x (Darwin 11.x) build procedure.
>
> Doesn't seem to work for me. :-(
Don't blame the messenger, your compilation environment is broken.
> $ make -f Makefile.init makefiles \
> > CCARGS='-arch x
> On 20 Oct 2014, at 11:04 am, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> Portability fix for Postfix 2.11:
>
> * Portability fix for MacOS X 10.7.x (Darwin 11.x) build procedure.
Doesn’t seem to work for me. :-(
$ cd postfix-2.11.3
$ make -f Makefile.init makefiles \
> CCARGS='-arch x86_64 -DUSE_TLS -DUSE_S
> On 20 Oct 2014, at 3:22 pm, Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 04:12:00AM +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> You'll find that 2.11.2 also no longer compiles.
>>
>> Nothing between 2.11.2 and 2.11.3 changed in this regard. Did you
>> upgrade your OS (to Yosemite)? Or upgr
On Oct 19, 2014, at 11:12 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
>> $ make -f Makefile.init makefiles \
>>> CCARGS='-arch x86_64 -DUSE_TLS -DUSE_SASL_AUTH \
>>> -DDEF_SERVER_SASL_TYPE=\"dovecot\" \
>>> -DDEF_COMMAND_DIR=\"/usr/local/sbin\" \
>>> -DDEF_CONFIG_DIR=\"/usr/local/etc/postfix\" \
>>> -DDEF_DA
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:01:51AM -0500, Larry Stone wrote:
> > You should no longer need to specify "-lresolv" (though it won't
> > fix this problem), and should never have needed to specify "-arch x86_64?.
>
> Hmmm, that '-arch x86_64' was in a note you (Viktor) posted on 5/11/14 in the
> top
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:01:51AM -0500, Larry Stone wrote:
>
>>> You should no longer need to specify "-lresolv" (though it won't
>>> fix this problem), and should never have needed to specify "-arch x86_64?.
>>
>> Hmmm, that '-arch x86
