On Dec 25, 2014 3:15 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:> > > Am 25.12.2014 um 21:09 schrieb Benny Pedersen: > >> Robert Schetterer skrev den 2014-12-25 19:49: >>> >>> Am 18.12.2014 um 17:56 schrieb Robin Helgelin: >>>> >>>> We?re using dovecot 1.0.7 >>> >>> that version is total out of date , update to recent version >> >> >> centos is a precompiled problem :=) > > > no it is not > > do you realy think the RPMS are falling from heaven or is it more likelybe able to use rpmbuild as i do on Fedora for packages like dovecot-2.2.15-3.fc20.20141025.rh.x86_64 or postfix-2.11.3-1.fc20.20141020.rh.x86_64?> > your Gentoo is nice in a small environment > > on larger setups someone is using binary packages and can setup his ownrepo with overrides while maintain *testable* setups>Just to point out, it is possible to set up a binary Gentoo setup with a single server compiling packages then made available to downstream computers -- I ran such a setup for a few years. Can also have multiple of these in an overlay fashion for testing. Pros and cons vs. normal binary distros, but it can be done. Anyways, regarding the OP's problem, 1.0.7 is only the latest available package from RedHat/CentOS. It's so out of date and so many bugs have been squashed that it makes little sense for anyone to spend much time trying to figure out the problem. Even Red Hat doesn't support it in production anymore. Might be time to break out the compiler.
On 12/26/14, Jeff Mitchell <jeffrey.mitchell at gmail.com> wrote:> On Dec 25, 2014 3:15 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:>> >> your Gentoo is nice in a small environment >> >> on larger setups someone is using binary packages and can setup his own > repo with overrides while maintain *testable* setups >> > > Just to point out, it is possible to set up a binary Gentoo setup with a > single server compiling packages then made available to downstream > computers -- I ran such a setup for a few years. Can also have multiple of > these in an overlay fashion for testing. Pros and cons vs. normal binary > distros, but it can be done. >As we do today for some 417 servers (real servers, not virtual crap), its very easy to do, even my previous employer who used slackware with a few hundred servers used almost identical fashion. Amazing at how rpm and deb users think they are the only ones in this world who can manage large enterprise server farms, just shows how narrow sighted and ill-informed they are.
Am 26.12.2014 um 02:20 schrieb Edwardo Garcia:> On 12/26/14, Jeff Mitchell <jeffrey.mitchell at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 25, 2014 3:15 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: >>> >>> your Gentoo is nice in a small environment >>> >>> on larger setups someone is using binary packages and can setup his own >> repo with overrides while maintain *testable* setups >> >> Just to point out, it is possible to set up a binary Gentoo setup with a >> single server compiling packages then made available to downstream >> computers -- I ran such a setup for a few years. Can also have multiple of >> these in an overlay fashion for testing. Pros and cons vs. normal binary >> distros, but it can be done. > > As we do today for some 417 servers (real servers, not virtual crap), > its very easy to do, even my previous employer who used slackware with > a few hundred servers used almost identical fashion. > > Amazing at how rpm and deb users think they are the only ones in this > world who can manage large enterprise server farms, just shows how > narrow sighted and ill-informed they are.narrow sighted are people thinking others are ill-informed or as Benny thinking outdated RPM packages are a persistent problem not easily solveable sure, you can manage anything if you write enough tools to automate things, nothing new for me as software developer, but don't you think there is a reason why advanced package management exists and 95% of all production environments are uusing them? and if it is only to have a *formal verification* based on the rpm database that there are no dep errors and compare 100, 200, 1000 machine setups automated with a single click -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 181 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20141226/a27bd1e7/attachment.sig>
binary packages vs. compiled has nothing to do with the op issue. The problem is an outdated version of the software. Update by whatever means necessary and get on with your day. On Dec 25, 2014, at 7:11 PM, Jeff Mitchell wrote:> On Dec 25, 2014 3:15 PM, "Reindl Harald" <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote: >> >> >> Am 25.12.2014 um 21:09 schrieb Benny Pedersen: >> >>> Robert Schetterer skrev den 2014-12-25 19:49: >>>> >>>> Am 18.12.2014 um 17:56 schrieb Robin Helgelin: >>>>> >>>>> We?re using dovecot 1.0.7 >>>> >>>> that version is total out of date , update to recent version >>> >>> >>> centos is a precompiled problem :=) >> >> >> no it is not >> >> do you realy think the RPMS are falling from heaven or is it more likely > be able to use rpmbuild as i do on Fedora for packages like > dovecot-2.2.15-3.fc20.20141025.rh.x86_64 or > postfix-2.11.3-1.fc20.20141020.rh.x86_64? >> >> your Gentoo is nice in a small environment >> >> on larger setups someone is using binary packages and can setup his own > repo with overrides while maintain *testable* setups >> > > Just to point out, it is possible to set up a binary Gentoo setup with a > single server compiling packages then made available to downstream > computers -- I ran such a setup for a few years. Can also have multiple of > these in an overlay fashion for testing. Pros and cons vs. normal binary > distros, but it can be done. > > Anyways, regarding the OP's problem, 1.0.7 is only the latest available > package from RedHat/CentOS. It's so out of date and so many bugs have been > squashed that it makes little sense for anyone to spend much time trying to > figure out the problem. Even Red Hat doesn't support it in production > anymore. > > Might be time to break out the compiler.