Guys I'm desperately looking for a postfix 2.2.x SRPM. I currently use 2.1.5.. I've found these, http://ftp.wl0.org/yum/postfix/2.2/rhel4/SRPMS.postfix/ Has anyone tried them, or can anyone recommend a proper SRPM for me for Centos 4.1? Kind regards -- Kenneth Kalmer kenneth.kalmer at gmail.com Folding at home stats http://vspx27.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&username=kenneth%2Ekalmer
Kenneth Kalmer wrote:> Guys > > I'm desperately looking for a postfix 2.2.x SRPM. I currently use 2.1.5.. > > I've found these, http://ftp.wl0.org/yum/postfix/2.2/rhel4/SRPMS.postfix/ > > Has anyone tried them, or can anyone recommend a proper SRPM for me > for Centos 4.1?I'm using the 2.1 version from there without any problems on CentOS 3.5. I poked around in the spec file and must say, that that is some nifty packaging. I'd say "Go ahead with using postfix from there". Only problem I see: postfix seems to be guarded by SELinux under CentOS 4.1, so you might run into a problem there. Ralph -- Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible Bayerischer Rundfunk...HA-Multimedia | ....to right-justify any idea, even one Rundfunkplatz 1........80300 M?nchen | .which cannot be justified on any other Tl:089.5900.16023..Fx:089.5900.16240 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050805/c8ff1ccc/attachment-0002.sig>
On 8/5/05, Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos at br-online.de> wrote:> Kenneth Kalmer wrote: > > Guys > > > > I'm desperately looking for a postfix 2.2.x SRPM. I currently use 2.1.5.. > > > > I've found these, http://ftp.wl0.org/yum/postfix/2.2/rhel4/SRPMS.postfix/ > > > > Has anyone tried them, or can anyone recommend a proper SRPM for me > > for Centos 4.1? > > I'm using the 2.1 version from there without any problems on CentOS 3.5. > I poked around in the spec file and must say, that that is some nifty > packaging. I'd say "Go ahead with using postfix from there". > > Only problem I see: postfix seems to be guarded by SELinux under CentOS > 4.1, so you might run into a problem there.I took the plunge with the postfix RPM I linked to above. It works very decently, I needed 2.2.x for the new "query" syntax in the virtual lookup tables. The above RPM also had the VDA patches built in so it's quite a nice bundle. There were some problems with the upgrade, but that was minor postfix configuration issues.> > Ralph > -- > Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible > Bayerischer Rundfunk...HA-Multimedia | ....to right-justify any idea, even one > Rundfunkplatz 1........80300 M?nchen | .which cannot be justified on any other > Tl:089.5900.16023..Fx:089.5900.16240 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC-- Kenneth Kalmer kenneth.kalmer at gmail.com Folding at home stats http://vspx27.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&username=kenneth%2Ekalmer