Hi,

are there any news on this?
Or do we have to go the way install old dovecot/remove it or upgrade
instead of clean install?
Because as the ssl-params executaböe is missing in 2.3.0 I don't know
how else I should create it. If this file isn't even needed for 2.3.0
can it be a file with any content eg 'touch
/var/lib/dovecot/ssl-parameters.dat' so that the file is just there and
dovecot-init.servive doesn't want to call the
/usr/libexec/dovecot/ssl-params executable?

Thanks,
Thomas

Am 02.02.2018 um 09:26 schrieb Aki Tuomi:
> 
>> On February 2, 2018 at 5:09 AM TG Servers wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> you definitely have a problem with the packages out of your own repo for
>> version 2.3.0 and CentOS.
>> And this is only if you do a clean install, meaning there was no lower
>> dovecot version ever running on the system.
>>
>> If you want to 'systemctl start dovecot' it breaks with a dependency
>> error which comes from dovecot-init.service.
>>
>> dovecot-init.service :
>> [Unit]
>> Description=One-time Dovecot init service
>> ConditionPathExists=|!/var/lib/dovecot/ssl-parameters.dat
>> ConditionPathExists=|!/etc/pki/dovecot/certs/dovecot.pem
>>
>> [Service]
>> Type=oneshot
>> RemainAfterExit=no
>> ExecStart=/bin/sh -c '\
>> if [ ! -f /etc/pki/dovecot/certs/dovecot.pem ]; \
>> then\
>> SSLDIR=/etc/pki/dovecot/
>> OPENSSLCONFIG=/etc/pki/dovecot/dovecot-openssl.cnf
>> /usr/libexec/dovecot/mkcert.sh /dev/null 2>&1;\
>> fi;\
>> if [ ! -f /var/lib/dovecot/ssl-parameters.dat ]; \
>> then\
>> /usr/libexec/dovecot/ssl-params >/dev/null 2>&1; \
>> fi'
>>
>> It wants to call /usr/libexec/dovecot/ssl-params if
>> /var/lib/dovecot/ssl-parameters.dat (which is deprecated now as I
>> understood) is not existing.
>> The problem is in 2.3.0 /usr/libexec/dovecot/ssl-params is not existent
>> anymore.
>>
>> This error does not occur if you for instance install 2.2.x from the
>> base repo, start it once, and then update the version from your repo.
>> This is because the ssl-parameters.dat was created with the old version
>> then.
>>
>> But this should not be the expected behaviour I think. It should be
>> possible to do a fresh install of 2.3.0 on a fresh system.
>>
>> Can you please get back to me on that?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
> 
> 
> Thank you for reporting this, we'll look into it.
> 
> ---
> Aki Tuomi
> 
> Dovecot oy
> 

Reply via email to