Re: v2.9.0 release planning

From: Scott Kitterman <ietf-dkim_at_kitterman.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 00:15:09 -0400

Steve Jenkins <stevejenkins_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Scott Kitterman
><ietf-dkim_at_kitterman.com>wrote:
>
>> For the Debian/Ubuntu packages, here are the options I'm using:
>>
>> --disable-live-testing \
>> --enable-vbr \
>> --enable-rbl \
>> --enable-atps \
>> --enable-stats \
>> --enable-replace_rules \
>> --enable-query_cache \
>> --with-libmemcached \
>> --with-unbound \
>> --with-openldap \
>> --with-db \
>> --with-libxml2 \
>> --with-odbx \
>> --with-sql-backend \
>> --with-sasl \
>> --with-test-socket=inet:8891_at_localhost \
>> --with-lua
>>
>
>The RHEL/Fedora packages only have:
>
># opendkim -V
>opendkim: OpenDKIM Filter v2.8.2
> Compiled with OpenSSL 1.0.0-fips 29 Mar 2010
> SMFI_VERSION 0x1000001
> libmilter version 1.0.1
> Supported signing algorithms:
> rsa-sha1
> rsa-sha256
> Supported canonicalization algorithms:
> relaxed
> simple
> libopendkim 2.8.2:
>
>I've tried to keep it simple to keep the install footprint down, and
>anyone
>who needs anything "fancier" can roll their own. Any feedback regarding
>what options SHOULD be in my package that aren't?
>
>SteveJ

I'd definitely enable unbound and at least db. The minimalist/maximalist question is philosophical. Your general approach is reasonable for Red Hat/Fedora. AIUI, rebuilding for different options is more normal than in Debian. Compare the postfix packages in the two distros as an example.

Scott K
Received on Thu Apr 11 2013 - 04:15:19 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Apr 11 2013 - 04:18:02 PST