aner way).
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Ian G Batten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu 25 Oct 07 12:30:57 BDT
> To: Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Cyrus Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Cyrus IMAPd 2.3.10 Released
>
>
&g
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:36:24PM +0100, Simon Matter wrote:
>
>> It may not be worth for you to worry about it but it is worth for me and
>> maybe also for Ken. People using my RPMs expect things to work. And
>> people
>> do use it on affected systems and they fill my mailbox or the list with
>
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:36:24PM +0100, Simon Matter wrote:
>
>> It may not be worth for you to worry about it but it is worth for me and
>> maybe also for Ken. People using my RPMs expect things to work. And
>> people
>> do use it on affected systems and they fill my mailbox or the list with
>
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:36:24PM +0100, Simon Matter wrote:
> It may not be worth for you to worry about it but it is worth for me and
> maybe also for Ken. People using my RPMs expect things to work. And people
> do use it on affected systems and they fill my mailbox or the list with
> complain
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 06:39:45AM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
>
>> That's friggin' great! We can't exactly force people to have a
>> particular version of glibc just to run Cyrus 2.3.10. Either we need to
>> come up with something that will run on all systems, or I'll be inclined
>> to remove
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 06:39:45AM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
> That's friggin' great! We can't exactly force people to have a
> particular version of glibc just to run Cyrus 2.3.10. Either we need to
> come up with something that will run on all systems, or I'll be inclined
> to remove the
Simon Matter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:42:02 +0100
>>> Tomas Janousek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> tjanouse> Looks correct. (will not terminate if it reaches NGROUPS, don't
>> know if that
>> tjanouse> can happen though)
>>
>> Oops, it never happen.
>> It is intended to be
> Hi,
>
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:42:02 +0100
>> Tomas Janousek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> tjanouse> Looks correct. (will not terminate if it reaches NGROUPS, don't
> know if that
> tjanouse> can happen though)
>
> Oops, it never happen.
> It is intended to be safe-keeping for avoiding e
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 08:57:29AM +0100, Rudy Gevaert wrote:
> Bron Gondwana wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:19:26PM -0800, Rich Wales wrote:
>>> What is the current status of 2.3.10? Right after it was announced
>>> a couple of weeks ago, I saw some people reporting problems. Are
>>> there
Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:19:26PM -0800, Rich Wales wrote:
>> What is the current status of 2.3.10? Right after it was announced
>> a couple of weeks ago, I saw some people reporting problems. Are
>> there any patches? Or is 2.3.10 still believed to be OK as is?
>>
>> I'm
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 07:19:26PM -0800, Rich Wales wrote:
> What is the current status of 2.3.10? Right after it was announced
> a couple of weeks ago, I saw some people reporting problems. Are
> there any patches? Or is 2.3.10 still believed to be OK as is?
>
> I'm running 2.3.9 on a FreeBSD
What is the current status of 2.3.10? Right after it was announced
a couple of weeks ago, I saw some people reporting problems. Are
there any patches? Or is 2.3.10 still believed to be OK as is?
I'm running 2.3.9 on a FreeBSD 6.2 master and an Ubuntu 7.10 replica
server setup, and I want to upg
Hi,
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:42:02 +0100
> Tomas Janousek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tjanouse> Looks correct. (will not terminate if it reaches NGROUPS, don't know
if that
tjanouse> can happen though)
Oops, it never happen.
It is intended to be safe-keeping for avoiding endless-loop.
tj
Hi,
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 09:57:45 -0400
> Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
murch> I don't have easy access to a BSD platform. Would somebody be willing
murch> to write and test such a patch?
How about this patch?
Index: lib/auth_unix.c
diff -u -p lib/auth_unix.c.orig lib/auth_
Tomas Janousek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 03:52:24PM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
>> It seems to me from the source of getgrouplist() that it sets "the
>> actual number of groups found" to ngroups only when it returns 0.
>> When it returns -1, "the number of groups actually filled" i
Hi,
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:36:45 +0200
> Tomas Janousek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tjanouse> Hi,
tjanouse> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 02:35:05AM +0900, Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> tjanouse> Yes. It should read "ret == -1 && ngroups != newstate->ngroups".
> I'm really
> tjanouse> confused why
Hi,
> On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 14:02:59 +0200
> Tomas Janousek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
tjanouse> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 03:30:30PM -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
>> Perhaps, it should be:
>> do {
>> groupids = (gid_t *)xrealloc((gid_t *)groupids,
>> n
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:13:01 -0400
>> Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> murch> Tomas Janousek wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
>> --- auth_unix.c.~1.46.~ 2007-09-27 16:02:45.0 -0400
Hi,
> Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:31:32 +0900,
> Hajimu UMEMOTO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
ume> The code is suspicious to me. Isn't the test of `ret != -1' is
ume> opposite?
ume> Further, it seems that the test of `ngroups == newstate->ngroups'
ume> assumes that newstate->ngroups holds the actual
Hi,
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 12:40:31 -0400
> Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
murch> From limits.h on my Fedora box:
murch> #define NGROUPS_MAX65536
murch> It seems like a waste of memory to use NGROUPS_MAX as the default size
murch> on this platform.
Umm, okay. Sorry for t
Hi,
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 11:13:01 -0400
> Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
murch> Tomas Janousek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
> --- auth_unix.c.~1.46.~ 2007-09-27 16:02:45.0 -0400
> +++ auth_unix.c 2007-10-2
Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:03:35 -0400
>> Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> murch> John Capo wrote:
>> On Thu, October 25, 2007 21:10, John Capo wrote:
>>> Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>>
Simon Matter wrote:
>> On the Lin
Hi,
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:03:35 -0400
> Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
murch> John Capo wrote:
> On Thu, October 25, 2007 21:10, John Capo wrote:
>> Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>
>>> Simon Matter wrote:
>>>
> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside f
Tomas Janousek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 04:50:02PM +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
> --- auth_unix.c.~1.46.~ 2007-09-27 16:02:45.0 -0400
> +++ auth_unix.c 2007-10-25 23:02:15.0 -0400
> @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@
> struct group *grp;
> #ifdef HAV
> John Capo wrote:
>> Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>> John Capo wrote:
On Thu, October 25, 2007 21:10, John Capo wrote:
> Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> Simon Matter wrote:
>>
On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl
John Capo wrote:
> Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>> John Capo wrote:
>>> On Thu, October 25, 2007 21:10, John Capo wrote:
Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Simon Matter wrote:
>
>>> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
>>
Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> John Capo wrote:
> >On Thu, October 25, 2007 21:10, John Capo wrote:
> >>Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >>
> >>>Simon Matter wrote:
> >>>
> >On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
> >binaries:
> >
>
Simon Matter wrote:
>> Simon Matter wrote:
Simon Matter wrote:
>> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
>> binaries:
> I once posted to the list that 2.3.9 needs at least cyrus-sasl-2.1.19.
> As
> a package maintainer I know that :)
Did yo
> Simon Matter wrote:
>>> Simon Matter wrote:
> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
> binaries:
I once posted to the list that 2.3.9 needs at least cyrus-sasl-2.1.19.
As
a package maintainer I know that :)
>>> Did you ever figure out why? I'm
them?
>
> thx
> patrick
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Simon Matter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Ian G Batten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Ken Murchison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cyrus Mailing List"
>
> Sent
John Capo wrote:
> On Thu, October 25, 2007 21:10, John Capo wrote:
>> Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>>
>>> Simon Matter wrote:
>>>
> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
> binaries:
>
I once posted to the list that 2.3.9 needs at least
Simon Matter wrote:
>> Simon Matter wrote:
On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
binaries:
>>> I once posted to the list that 2.3.9 needs at least cyrus-sasl-2.1.19.
>>> As
>>> a package maintainer I know that :)
>> Did you ever figure out why? I'm not surpr
change them?
thx
patrick
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Matter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ian G Batten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Ken Murchison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Cyrus Mailing List"
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:01 P
On Thu, October 25, 2007 21:10, John Capo wrote:
> Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>> Simon Matter wrote:
>>
On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
binaries:
>>>
>>> I once posted to the list that 2.3.9 needs at least cyrus-sasl-2.1.19. As a
Quoting Ken Murchison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Simon Matter wrote:
> >> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
> >> binaries:
> >
> > I once posted to the list that 2.3.9 needs at least cyrus-sasl-2.1.19. As
> > a package maintainer I know that :)
>
> Did you ever figur
> Simon Matter wrote:
>>> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
>>> binaries:
>>
>> I once posted to the list that 2.3.9 needs at least cyrus-sasl-2.1.19.
>> As
>> a package maintainer I know that :)
>
> Did you ever figure out why? I'm not surprised that code in Cyru
Simon Matter wrote:
>> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
>> binaries:
>
> I once posted to the list that 2.3.9 needs at least cyrus-sasl-2.1.19. As
> a package maintainer I know that :)
Did you ever figure out why? I'm not surprised that code in Cyrus
somehow d
>
> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
> binaries:
I once posted to the list that 2.3.9 needs at least cyrus-sasl-2.1.19. As
a package maintainer I know that :)
Regards,
Simon
>
> imapd 2.3.7 + sasl 2.1.15: works
> imapd 2.3.7 + sasl 2.1.22: works
> imapd 2.3.9 +
On 25 Oct 07, at 1501, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Ian G Batten wrote:
>> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl
>> 2.1.15 binaries:
>> imapd 2.3.7 + sasl 2.1.15: works
>> imapd 2.3.7 + sasl 2.1.22: works
>> imapd 2.3.9 + sasl 2.1.15: not tried
>> imapd 2.3.9 + sasl 2.1.22: wor
Ian G Batten wrote:
>
> On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
> binaries:
>
> imapd 2.3.7 + sasl 2.1.15: works
> imapd 2.3.7 + sasl 2.1.22: works
> imapd 2.3.9 + sasl 2.1.15: not tried
> imapd 2.3.9 + sasl 2.1.22: works
> imapd 2.3.10 + sasl 2.1.15: fails (cannot ex
On 25 Oct 07, at 1248, Ken Murchison wrote:
> What does imapd.conf look like?
>
> Does the output of 'ctl_mboxlist -d' look reasonable?
>
> Does 'mbexamine user.igb' look reasonable?
OK, there's a steady stream of imapd processes being forked and then
dying on SIGSEGV. I've caught one in the
On the Linux box, all fresh compilations aside from the sasl 2.1.15
binaries:
imapd 2.3.7 + sasl 2.1.15: works
imapd 2.3.7 + sasl 2.1.22: works
imapd 2.3.9 + sasl 2.1.15: not tried
imapd 2.3.9 + sasl 2.1.22: works
imapd 2.3.10 + sasl 2.1.15: fails (cannot examine mailboxes, then
coredumps pri
On 10/25/07, Ian G Batten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I've just compiled 2.3.10 on batten.eu.org (my private x86 servers)
> and although it looks OK on the Solaris 10 system, it's in deep
> trouble on the elderly Linux machine. Both are upgrades from 2.3.7,
> the Solaris box is a replication
On 25 Oct 07, at 1248, Ken Murchison wrote:
> What does imapd.conf look like?
See second mail.
>
> Does the output of 'ctl_mboxlist -d' look reasonable?
Yes.
ctl_mboxlist -d > /tmp/foo
ctl_mboxlist -u < /tmp/foo
ctl_mboxlist -d | diff -c - /tmp/foo
comes up clean, too.
>
> Does 'mbexamine
>> idled_shutdown_check: 0
>
> Are you applying third-party patches? 'idled_shutdown_check' isn't
> a valid option in the stock distro.
No: the config dates back to the dawn of time, but the installation
today is a straight download and compile.
ian
Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.w
Ian G Batten wrote:
>
>
> On 25 Oct 07, at 1248, Ken Murchison wrote:
>
>> What does imapd.conf look like?
>
> See second mail.
>
>> Does the output of 'ctl_mboxlist -d' look reasonable?
>
> Yes.
>
> ctl_mboxlist -d > /tmp/foo
> ctl_mboxlist -u < /tmp/foo
> ctl_mboxlist -d | diff -c - /tmp/f
Ian G Batten wrote:
>
> On 25 Oct 07, at 1230, Ian G Batten wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've just compiled 2.3.10 on batten.eu.org (my private x86 servers)
>> and although it looks OK on the Solaris 10 system, it's in deep
>> trouble on the elderly Linux machine. Both are upgrades from 2.3.7,
>> the So
Ian G Batten wrote:
>
> On 25 Oct 07, at 1248, Ken Murchison wrote:
>
>> What does imapd.conf look like?
>>
>> Does the output of 'ctl_mboxlist -d' look reasonable?
>>
>> Does 'mbexamine user.igb' look reasonable?
>
> OK, there's a steady stream of imapd processes being forked and then
> dying
What does imapd.conf look like?
Does the output of 'ctl_mboxlist -d' look reasonable?
Does 'mbexamine user.igb' look reasonable?
Ian G Batten wrote:
>
>
> I've just compiled 2.3.10 on batten.eu.org (my private x86 servers) and
> although it looks OK on the Solaris 10 system, it's in deep tro
On 25 Oct 07, at 1230, Ian G Batten wrote:
>
>
> I've just compiled 2.3.10 on batten.eu.org (my private x86 servers)
> and although it looks OK on the Solaris 10 system, it's in deep
> trouble on the elderly Linux machine. Both are upgrades from
> 2.3.7, the Solaris box is a replication ta
I've just compiled 2.3.10 on batten.eu.org (my private x86 servers)
and although it looks OK on the Solaris 10 system, it's in deep
trouble on the elderly Linux machine. Both are upgrades from 2.3.7,
the Solaris box is a replication target, the Linux box is a
replication master that hand
51 matches
Mail list logo
