Thank you for your informations and very good documentation! Has anybody an eye to systemd/postfix because systemd will replace sysvinit/upstart in the upcoming Fedora 16 and so also in future RHEL-Versions and maybe replace upstart/sysvinit sooner or later in other distributions because the design of systemd seems to be really good
Am 27.02.2011 19:01, schrieb Wietse Venema: > People, this week I have gone through a several iterations and > several degrees of Postfix-upstart integration. > > The short answer is that only one option is practical at the moment. > The longer answer is summarized below. > > Wietse > > There are three major levels of Postfix-upstart integration. > > - Boot-only integration: use upstart to start/stop Postfix at > boot/shutdown time and nowhere else. > > This option is preferred. It requires no changes to Postfix, > and it does not affect Postfix reliability. Postfix comes > with its own daemon that (re)spawns mail processes as needed. > This small program has proven to be extremely reliable over > the past 14 years. > > - Fake integration: this variant involves running a dummy process > directly under upstart. This program translates SIGHUP/SIGTERM > signals from upstart into postfix reload/stop commands. > > This option has no benefits over "boot-only integration", as > observed by others; it just increases complexity. On the > positive side, it is fully compatible with existing Postfix > code for single-instance and multi-instance support. > > - Full integration: all Postfix master daemons run directly under > upstart. This requires re-implementing the Postfix start/stop > commands and multi-instance provisioning commands, so that they > execute requests through initctl(8). > > This option is not preferred. The code that executes requests > through initctl(8) needs to be maintained in parallel with > the existing management code, because many supported systems > do not use upstart. Another downside is that the longer code > paths through initctl(8) do not necessarily make Postfix more > reliable. > > Unfortunately, a lot of energy has gone into debating the next > option on- and off-list: > > - Broken integration: one proposed variant runs one Postfix master > daemon directly under upstart. It breaks the Postfix start/stop > commands and multi-instance support, because it lacks the steps > required for full initctl(8) integration (see previous item). > I tried several variants along this line. They were less broken, > but they still violated the principle of least astonishment. > > I don't want to spend more words on this heated debate, except for > the following: > > - If a new feature is important, then it should be developed in > the context of the Postfix development release, that is, Postfix > 2.9. > > - There is no need to distribute private branches of stable Postfix > releases that break major Postfix features. -- Reindl Harald the lounge interactive design GmbH A-1060 Vienna, Hofmühlgasse 17 CTO / software-development / cms-solutions p: +43 (1) 595 3999 33, m: +43 (676) 40 221 40 icq: 154546673, http://www.thelounge.net/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
