On 2022-01-08, Andreas Barth via Exim-users <[email protected]> wrote: > * Julian Bradfield via Exim-users ([email protected]) [220108 15:18]: >> The pain of dealing with Debian's antiquated versions (4.92) and >> gratuitous messing around with upstream's configuration (most recent >> annoyance, not supporting built-in SPF) is prompting me to think about >> switching to using the primary source. > > Debian stable uses 4.94, as well as oldstable-backports.
True. I hadn't thought of installing from backports. (My servers are on buster.) But I'm not sure whether there's anything in 4.94+ that I need now, it's just all the warnings I see about 4.92 being very obsolete. > If you could elaborate on your problems, perhaps there is an fix > available. Otherwise it's of course trivial to build your own debian > package, but I never felt the need to do so for exim. Specifically, I don't like the idea of installing an external tool spfquery and using the slightly clunky config snippet to use it, rather than using the built-in spf - I like things in the exim4 manual to work in my installation! However, I also don't like fiddling with systems more than necessary - sysadmin is not my job, it's just what I have to do to make things work. If I have to go the trouble of building my own Debian package, I might as well lose all the debian changes and just install exim from source, which is easy to repeat on all systems I might use. But there are things I know I might need to watch for: UIDs (Debian-exim vs exim), for example. So I suppose the question is: if I drop the master-source-built binary on top of the Debian one, what can I expect to break? (Tainting is the main thing I'm aware of as a risk.) I guess I could just try it and see on a quiet day :) -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
