On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:43:56 -0400 (EDT), Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote: > subscri...@viliar.net.ru: >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:36:35 -0400 (EDT), Wietse Venema >> <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote: >> > subscri...@viliar.net.ru: >> >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:02:41 -0400, Brian Evans - Postfix List >> >> <grkni...@scent-team.com> wrote: >> >> > On 8/2/2010 5:18 AM, subscri...@viliar.net.ru wrote: >> >> >> I use postfix with sqlite patch about 2 years with small fix to >> >> function >> >> >> name. I >> >> >> suggest to make something like this for postfix 2.8. Or maybe check >> >> >> sqlite >> >> >> version at compile time and use ifdef's. >> >> > >> >> > You might like this from the archives... >> >> > http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2010-06/0539.html >> >> >> >> Thank you. Do you think I should re-post it in that thread? I didn't >> find >> >> there any relevant posts to this problem. >> > >> > Especially if you can also post concrete code for solving this. >> > Otherwise, the Postfix xqlite driver is unlikely to change. >> > >> > Wietse >> >> Pardon. We have to also remove sqlite version or change it to something >> apropriate. > > If you want Postfix to support the obsolete API then you > cannot remove support for the preferred API.
Sorry for delay with answer. I'll send this diff as workaround. Because I'm not a programmer/coder. Probably correct decision is using some another ifdefs here. P.S. For me it's not a problem to live with own patched postfix as I do now. But the way you integrate sqlite support in postfix - is a 'kick off' CentOS 5 users from using postfix 2.8. It wouldn't compile anymore and I don't think is good. How much people will search&patch&compile postfix on their own? P.S2. It's not about flame.
