Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)
On Monday, May 28, 2012 02:22:32 AM David Hrbáč wrote: > Dne 26.5.2012 18:33, Lamar Owen napsal(a): > > Which is just as well, since this amavisd-new-milter is different from > > amavisd-milter, which is currently at version 1.5.0, the version that is > > compatible with amavisd-new 2.7.0 and up. It's somewhat unfortunate to > > have two very different things packaged with very similar names; the > > amavis-milter that comes with amavisd-new is much less useful than the > > separate amavisd-milter ( http://amavisd-milter.sourceforge.net/ ; the one > > packaged with amavisd-new is the one with a README at > > http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/README.milter.txt that points to the > > Petr Rehor rewrite at amavisd-milter.sourceforge.net). > I did not know about this. Are you willing to share your amavis-milter > spec file so we can include it in Repoforge? It's pretty basic, really. I'll dig it up; it's been a long time since I've done anything with it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)
Dne 26.5.2012 18:33, Lamar Owen napsal(a):
>
> The amavisd-new-milter package does exist for CentOS 5.8; I cannot, however,
> find an amavisd-new-milter package for CentOS 6 in either rpmforge or
> rpmforge-extras.
Right,
there's no el6 build because of spec file:
10 %{?el6:%define _without_milter 1}
11 %{?el5:%define _without_milter 0}
12 %{?el4:%define _without_milter 0}
I'm not sure why we have decided not to build el6.
>
> Which is just as well, since this amavisd-new-milter is different from
> amavisd-milter, which is currently at version 1.5.0, the version that is
> compatible with amavisd-new 2.7.0 and up. It's somewhat unfortunate to have
> two very different things packaged with very similar names; the amavis-milter
> that comes with amavisd-new is much less useful than the separate
> amavisd-milter ( http://amavisd-milter.sourceforge.net/ ; the one packaged
> with amavisd-new is the one with a README at
> http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/README.milter.txt that points to the Petr
> Rehor rewrite at amavisd-milter.sourceforge.net).
I did not know about this. Are you willing to share your amavis-milter
spec file so we can include it in Repoforge?
Regards,
DH
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:47:04 PM Les Mikesell wrote: >> Have you looked at MimeDefang's ability to run all of your scanners >> out of one milter? > > Yes. > > Doing the same thing with amavisd-new on the few sendmail installs I still > have running; amavisd-new runs clam (or, at one site, the sophos scanner) and > spamassassin, and amavisd-milter does everything needed with one milter. > Using essentially the same setup with a couple of postfix sites, but no > milter in that case. > Is it as efficient as the MimeDefang architecture? Aside from just unpacking the attachments once, MimeDefang runs a small binary as a multiplexor that connects to all sendmail milter hooks and passes the requests to the perl daemon as they happen. That means you can have a much smaller number of perl processes (that run spamassassin in-process) than sendmail children, and fast operations done by sendmail itself or a milter don't wait for slow operations tying up memory. I'm not sure there is even any equivalent way to do this without milters. See pg. 31 of http://www.mimedefang.org/static/mimedefang-lisa04.pdf Plus, you can add custom behavior to sendmail with a small snippet of perl. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:47:04 PM Les Mikesell wrote: > Have you looked at MimeDefang's ability to run all of your scanners > out of one milter? Yes. Doing the same thing with amavisd-new on the few sendmail installs I still have running; amavisd-new runs clam (or, at one site, the sophos scanner) and spamassassin, and amavisd-milter does everything needed with one milter. Using essentially the same setup with a couple of postfix sites, but no milter in that case. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > > To my knowledge no repos have the amavisd-milter package available; I've > built my own for six years or so. I've used both, and the amavisd-new-milter > (/usr/sbin/amavis-milter) is not nearly as useful as this amavisd-milter. In > fact, for at least the last three years I've not been able to get the > amavis-milter that comes with amavisd-new to work at all, whereas > amavisd-milter (the Petr Rehor version at sourceforge) works very well at > version 1.5.0. > Have you looked at MimeDefang's ability to run all of your scanners out of one milter? I've only used clamav, but it should do whatever you want with one unpacking of attachments and one hook into sendmail (and I think it works with postfix now too). -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 05:15:41 AM David Hrbáč wrote: > Dne 25.5.2012 02:00, Lamar Owen napsal(a): > > At the moment both EPEL and RPMforge are on a 2.6.x amavisd-new; 2.7 makes > > some changes in the AM.PDP protocol that can break, for instance, > > amavisd-milter (distinct from the much less useful amavis-milter). Neither > > repo has amavisd-milter, so that compatibility issue may not show up except > > to those who actually use amavisd-milter instead of the much less useful > > amavis-milter. > > Lamar, > Repoforge/RPMforge does provide amavisd-new-milter package... > DH David, I understand that you are one of the RPMforge/repoforge packagers, and I thank you for your efforts. The amavisd-new-milter package does exist for CentOS 5.8; I cannot, however, find an amavisd-new-milter package for CentOS 6 in either rpmforge or rpmforge-extras. Which is just as well, since this amavisd-new-milter is different from amavisd-milter, which is currently at version 1.5.0, the version that is compatible with amavisd-new 2.7.0 and up. It's somewhat unfortunate to have two very different things packaged with very similar names; the amavis-milter that comes with amavisd-new is much less useful than the separate amavisd-milter ( http://amavisd-milter.sourceforge.net/ ; the one packaged with amavisd-new is the one with a README at http://www.ijs.si/software/amavisd/README.milter.txt that points to the Petr Rehor rewrite at amavisd-milter.sourceforge.net). To my knowledge no repos have the amavisd-milter package available; I've built my own for six years or so. I've used both, and the amavisd-new-milter (/usr/sbin/amavis-milter) is not nearly as useful as this amavisd-milter. In fact, for at least the last three years I've not been able to get the amavis-milter that comes with amavisd-new to work at all, whereas amavisd-milter (the Petr Rehor version at sourceforge) works very well at version 1.5.0. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)
Dne 25.5.2012 02:00, Lamar Owen napsal(a): > At the moment both EPEL and RPMforge are on a 2.6.x amavisd-new; 2.7 makes > some changes in the AM.PDP protocol that can break, for instance, > amavisd-milter (distinct from the much less useful amavis-milter). Neither > repo has amavisd-milter, so that compatibility issue may not show up except > to those who actually use amavisd-milter instead of the much less useful > amavis-milter. Lamar, Repoforge/RPMforge does provide amavisd-new-milter package... DH ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences
Bowie Bailey wrote on 05/25/2012 01:00 PM: > Is "Fedora Project" EPEL? Yes. Phil ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences
On 5/25/2012 12:43 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:00 AM, John Doe wrote:
>> From: Bowie Bailey
>>
>>> On a related note, I have a server that is using both the epel and
>>> rpmforge repos. Is there a way to determine which packages came from
>>> which repo?
>> You could try something like this:
>> rpm -qa --qf "%-30{NAME}%{VENDOR}\n"
That looks interesting. I see four vendor names listed.
CentOS
Dag Apt Repository
Fedora Project
(none)
Is "Fedora Project" EPEL?
> In 6.x, yum keeps track of where packages were installed from.
> yum history packages-info packagename(s)
> will show that among other things. There might be a better way to get
> the whole list.
Unfortunately, this is an older system that I am trying to rebuild as
CentOS 6.
--
Bowie
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences
>
> > You could try something like this:
> > rpm -qa --qf "%-30{NAME}%{VENDOR}\n"
>
> In 6.x, yum keeps track of where packages were installed from.
> yum history packages-info packagename(s)
>
Hi. From http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=240877
yum list installed | grep repositoryname
Regards,
Jesus
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:00 AM, John Doe wrote:
> From: Bowie Bailey
>
>> On a related note, I have a server that is using both the epel and
>> rpmforge repos. Is there a way to determine which packages came from
>> which repo?
>
> You could try something like this:
> rpm -qa --qf "%-30{NAME}%{VENDOR}\n"
In 6.x, yum keeps track of where packages were installed from.
yum history packages-info packagename(s)
will show that among other things. There might be a better way to get
the whole list.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences
From: Bowie Bailey
> On a related note, I have a server that is using both the epel and
> rpmforge repos. Is there a way to determine which packages came from
> which repo?
You could try something like this:
rpm -qa --qf "%-30{NAME}%{VENDOR}\n"
See the man for more useful tags.
JD
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences
On 5/24/2012 8:00 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > I'll step out on a limb here and generalize somewhat; I would think that most > CentOS users use at least one third-party repository, if the traffic on this > list is any indication (and, again, I reserve the right to be wrong). So > knowing how to properly determine how to use those repos (which was the OP's > question, after all) is very useful indeed, IMO. On a related note, I have a server that is using both the epel and rpmforge repos. Is there a way to determine which packages came from which repo? The rpmforge ones are fairly easy: $ rpm -qa | grep '\.rf$' but epel doesn't use the repotag, so I'm not sure how to do it. Any suggestions? -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 03:26:02 PM Les Mikesell wrote: > But many, probably most of those cases are revs with forward/backward > compatibility. It's hard to generalize about that, though. Yep, it sure is. Forward/backward compatibility is almost entirely in the hands of the upstream projects (upstream from Red Hat). Some do that kindof thing well; others do not. Open source not only gives choice to the user, but also transfers the responsibility for choosing wisely to the user making the choice. > Even in > the scalpel case you mentioned the up-rev lib was likely compatible > but just specified as requiring an exact version in the spec file. The one that has bitten me the hardest is xrdp. It will bite harder once a release based on FreeRDP rather than rdesktop is released out of git. The compatibility depends entirely on the package's upstream policies, developers, and stage of development (xrdp isn't out of beta, after all). > And on the other side there are things like viewvc that are at the > same rev in epel and rpmforge but have slightly different and > incompatible configurations (and there is a reason I know that...). Likewise amavisd-new. It's not rare to have issues, and lots of people have had them, thus my cautions. Not trying to scare anyone off from any third party repository; just want to give information that allows people to make informed decisions, and show people how I at least arrived at my conclusions that work for me with my particular setup; what my particular setup is isn't the important thing, it's how and why I got there that I consider potentially useful to others. At the moment both EPEL and RPMforge are on a 2.6.x amavisd-new; 2.7 makes some changes in the AM.PDP protocol that can break, for instance, amavisd-milter (distinct from the much less useful amavis-milter). Neither repo has amavisd-milter, so that compatibility issue may not show up except to those who actually use amavisd-milter instead of the much less useful amavis-milter. I'll step out on a limb here and generalize somewhat; I would think that most CentOS users use at least one third-party repository, if the traffic on this list is any indication (and, again, I reserve the right to be wrong). So knowing how to properly determine how to use those repos (which was the OP's question, after all) is very useful indeed, IMO. And, again, FWIW, HTH, IMHO, YMMV, etc. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)
Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: >> >> Probably so, and I know how to do that, but I wasn't illustrating a >> specific workaround, just illustrating the problem. > > Yes, you are right to bring it up, but I don't think it should scare > people off. You just have to pay attention. > > >> The bottom line: out of the about 6,000 packages in EPEL, there are 7% >> or so that have the same name but a different version in RPMforge; out >> of the about 4,400 (4,381 listed by yum repolist) package in RPMforge, >> there are 9.5% or so that have the same name but a different version in >> EPEL. If anything you are running relies on any of those 417 packages, >> you have a potential for problems. >> >> So, it's not rare. > > But many, probably most of those cases are revs with forward/backward > compatibility. It's hard to generalize about that, though. Even in > the scalpel case you mentioned the up-rev lib was likely compatible > but just specified as requiring an exact version in the spec file. > And on the other side there are things like viewvc that are at the > same rev in epel and rpmforge but have slightly different and > incompatible configurations (and there is a reason I know that...). Yup - that drives me crazy, when someone's put a dependency on an *exact* rev of a library, rather than >=. And Lamar, that was a serious bit of research. Thanks for the job. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > Probably so, and I know how to do that, but I wasn't illustrating a specific > workaround, just illustrating the problem. Yes, you are right to bring it up, but I don't think it should scare people off. You just have to pay attention. > The bottom line: out of the about 6,000 packages in EPEL, there are 7% or so > that have the same name but a different version in RPMforge; out of the about > 4,400 (4,381 listed by yum repolist) package in RPMforge, there are 9.5% or > so that have the same name but a different version in EPEL. If anything you > are running relies on any of those 417 packages, you have a potential for > problems. > > So, it's not rare. But many, probably most of those cases are revs with forward/backward compatibility. It's hard to generalize about that, though. Even in the scalpel case you mentioned the up-rev lib was likely compatible but just specified as requiring an exact version in the spec file. And on the other side there are things like viewvc that are at the same rev in epel and rpmforge but have slightly different and incompatible configurations (and there is a reason I know that...). -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
