On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 07:05:59 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> ...
> [postfix dies with a "Protocol not supported" when built in a jail
> without an IPv6 address]
> ...
> I've just bumped into this exact situation with mail/postfix28 and
> suspect that earlier postfix ports have the same issue. The
Peter Jeremy:
> I've just bumped into this exact situation with mail/postfix28 and
> suspect that earlier postfix ports have the same issue. The above fix
> works on postfix28 and I would request that it be added to that port's
> patch list. Since this is a workaround for a FreeBSD-specific issue
Resurrecting an old thread because I've just run into this problem...
[postfix dies with a "Protocol not supported" when built in a jail
without an IPv6 address]
On 2011-Nov-17 15:41:12 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>A more proactive workaround would be to treat "protocol not supported"
>as a non
Sahil Tandon píše v so 19. 11. 2011 v 15:48 -0500:
> Wietse has made the change upstream and I plan to commit that in a
> little bit. Just running it through my tinderbox if folks don't mind
> the wait (a few hours).
Not at all, and thanks both!
--
--
Pav Lucistnik
... the obe
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 01:36:20 -0500
Sahil Tandon articulated:
> This port has been updated to Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 2019.
Thanks Sahil. :)
--
Jerry ♔
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
_
This port has been updated to Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 2019.
--
Sahil Tandon
pgpVTSiYHETTH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 19:42:02 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Wietse Venema píše v čt 17. 11. 2011 v 15:41 -0500:
> > Pav Lucistnik:
> > > Wietse Venema p??e v ?t 17. 11. 2011 v 13:23 -0500:
> > > > Actually, a Postfix built-in default setting changed on 20110918.
> > > >
> > > > It now enables IP
Wietse Venema píše v čt 17. 11. 2011 v 15:41 -0500:
> Pav Lucistnik:
> > Wietse Venema p??e v ?t 17. 11. 2011 v 13:23 -0500:
> > > Actually, a Postfix built-in default setting changed on 20110918.
> > >
> > > It now enables IPv6 unless this is turned off in a configuration
> > > file. I can fix t
On 18/11/2011 11:48, per...@pluto.rain.com wrote:
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
The build jails are configured to have only IPv4 address on lo0,
but the host have both IPv4 and IPv6 configured on its lo0.
Even disregarding RFC3513, is an IPv6-enabled kernel without an IPv6
address on lo0 a realistic
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 03:48:49 -0800
per...@pluto.rain.com articulated:
> Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>
> > The build jails are configured to have only IPv4 address on lo0,
> > but the host have both IPv4 and IPv6 configured on its lo0.
>
> Even disregarding RFC3513, is an IPv6-enabled kernel without an
Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> The build jails are configured to have only IPv4 address on lo0,
> but the host have both IPv4 and IPv6 configured on its lo0.
Even disregarding RFC3513, is an IPv6-enabled kernel without an IPv6
address on lo0 a realistic configuration for a "real" FreeBSD system?
If not,
Pav Lucistnik:
> Wietse Venema p??e v ?t 17. 11. 2011 v 13:23 -0500:
> > Actually, a Postfix built-in default setting changed on 20110918.
> >
> > It now enables IPv6 unless this is turned off in a configuration
> > file. I can fix that at compile time, and thereby not trigger
> > the error on bu
Wietse Venema píše v čt 17. 11. 2011 v 13:23 -0500:
> Wietse Venema:
> > Jase Thew:
> > > It can occur when IPv6 is enabled, but you don't have any IPv6 addresses
> > > configured on any interfaces. (Yes, having an IPv6 enabled interface
> > > with no addresses assigned is non-RFC3513 compliant,
Wietse Venema:
> Jase Thew:
> > It can occur when IPv6 is enabled, but you don't have any IPv6 addresses
> > configured on any interfaces. (Yes, having an IPv6 enabled interface
> > with no addresses assigned is non-RFC3513 compliant, but it can and does
> > occur).
...
> Thanks, this is very he
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:54:02 -0500 (EST)
Wietse Venema articulated:
> Sloppy programmers should never be rewarded.
I couldn't agree more fully. Unfortunately, they all too often are.
--
Jerry ♔
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To
Jase Thew:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> On 16/11/2011 23:30, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 13:16:34 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >
> [SNIP]
> >> It would be immensely helpful if run-time details could be made
> >> available including line of source code, and
Doug Barton:
> On 11/16/2011 05:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
> > I tend to believe that network-less build environments are not
> > representative for the environment where an Internet MTA would run,
> > but hey, what do I know.
>
> I think you're right that having a network makes the MTA more useful.
On 11/16/2011 05:03, Wietse Venema wrote:
> I tend to believe that network-less build environments are not
> representative for the environment where an Internet MTA would run,
> but hey, what do I know.
I think you're right that having a network makes the MTA more useful. :)
However given the pr
On 16/11/2011 23:30, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 13:16:34 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
[SNIP]
It would be immensely helpful if run-time details could be made
available including line of source code, and any system configuration
details that are necessary to reproduce the condition
On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 13:16:34 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Wietse:
> > Would it be possible to give the jail a loopback interface?
> >
> > I don't mind if FreeBSD improves its build environment such that
> > it breaks the build after 12 years. If adding a loopback interface
> > fixes this, then
Wietse:
> Would it be possible to give the jail a loopback interface?
>
> I don't mind if FreeBSD improves its build environment such that
> it breaks the build after 12 years. If adding a loopback interface
> fixes this, then we can all move on to more interesting things.
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:
On Nov 16, 2011, at 11:24 AM, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2011 16:00, "Wietse Venema" wrote:
>>
>> Kurt Jaeger:
>>> Hi!
>>>
Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value
> (it
determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
>>> [...]
Postfix does non
On 16 Nov 2011 16:00, "Wietse Venema" wrote:
>
> Kurt Jaeger:
> > Hi!
> >
> > > > > > > Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value
(it
> > > > > > > determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
> > [...]
> > > Postfix does none of that.
> >
> > The fbsd postfix-current p
Kurt Jaeger:
> Hi!
>
> > > > > > Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value (it
> > > > > > determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
> [...]
> > Postfix does none of that.
>
> The fbsd postfix-current port during the post-install script does
> something which fails
On 2011/11/16 14:18, olli hauer wrote:
On 2011-11-16 10:28, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
On 2011/11/16 02:56, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:55:57 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or hav
Hi!
> > > > > Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value (it
> > > > > determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
[...]
> Postfix does none of that.
The fbsd postfix-current port during the post-install script does
something which fails on a jail-based build-cluster
On 2011-11-16 10:28, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> On 2011/11/16 02:56, Sahil Tandon wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:55:57 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
>>
>>> Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
>>>
What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
sufficiently differ
Kurt Jaeger:
> Hi!
>
> > > > Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value (it
> > > > determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
>
> [quote
> http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2011-11/0385.html]
> > > > I have heard about bizarre errors on FreeBSD (jail)
Hi!
> > > Postconf opens a socket to determine the mynetworks value (it
> > > determines the local interfaces and their netmasks).
[quote
http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2011-11/0385.html]
> > > I have heard about bizarre errors on FreeBSD (jail) systems where
> > > the user
On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:28:03 +0100
Pav Lucistnik articulated:
> On 2011/11/16 02:56, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:55:57 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> >
> >> Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
> >>
> >>> What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or hav
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:28:03AM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Is it a clever idea to hardcode local interfaces on build machine into a
> package that will then be redistributed to other machines?
>
Am I misunderstanding something, or is this a local configuration script
that customizes the in
On 2011/11/16 02:56, Sahil Tandon wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:55:57 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
sufficiently different to break the socket code inside of postconf)?
It is a pu
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 17:55:57 +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
>
> > What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
> > sufficiently different to break the socket code inside of postconf)?
>
> It is a purposefully no-networking sand
On Nov 15, 2011, at 11:55 AM, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
>
>> What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
>> sufficiently different to break the socket code inside of postconf)?
>
> It is a purposefully no-networking sandbox jail.
Jase Thew píše v út 15. 11. 2011 v 16:31 +:
> What networking/DNS configuration is Pointyhat lacking (or have
> sufficiently different to break the socket code inside of postconf)?
It is a purposefully no-networking sandbox jail. What networking
activity postconf wants to run?
--
--
Pav L
On 15/11/2011 14:31, Sahil Tandon wrote:
It was marked broken on a particular architecture, hence the genesis of this
thread. I appreciate that diagnosis is difficult; perhaps Olli's suggestion is
helpful in isolating the issue. I do not know how else to troubleshoot since
these pointyhat er
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 09:31:49 -0500
Sahil Tandon articulated:
> It was marked broken on a particular architecture, hence the genesis
> of this thread. I appreciate that diagnosis is difficult; perhaps
> Olli's suggestion is helpful in isolating the issue. I do not know
> how else to troubleshoot
It was marked broken on a particular architecture, hence the genesis of this
thread. I appreciate that diagnosis is difficult; perhaps Olli's suggestion is
helpful in isolating the issue. I do not know how else to troubleshoot since
these pointyhat errors are not - AFAIK - reproducible by othe
On 2011-11-15 10:45, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
> 1) The problem is not amd64 specific
>
> 2) No point unmarking BROKEN, it currently fails on i386 pointyhat nodes
> too
>
> 3) Diagnosis is hard because the postfix-install shell script prints no
> useful progress messages
>
> Example failure log:
> ht
1) The problem is not amd64 specific
2) No point unmarking BROKEN, it currently fails on i386 pointyhat nodes
too
3) Diagnosis is hard because the postfix-install shell script prints no
useful progress messages
Example failure log:
http://pointyhat.freebsd.org/errorlogs/i386-errorlogs/e.8.20
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 09:24:30PM -0500, Sahil Tandon wrote:
> [ pav@ and those who tested mail/postifx-current on amd64 added to Cc: ]
>
> On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 08:37:13 -0500, Jerry wrote:
>
> > The "postfix-current" port is still marked as broken:
> >
> > .if ${ARCH} == "amd64"
> > BROKEN=
[ pav@ and those who tested mail/postifx-current on amd64 added to Cc: ]
On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 08:37:13 -0500, Jerry wrote:
> The "postfix-current" port is still marked as broken:
>
> .if ${ARCH} == "amd64"
> BROKEN= fails during installation
> .endif
>
> Since all previous releases of
42 matches
Mail list logo
