MailScanner 4.66.5 woes on Centos 5.1

Tom G. Christensen tgc at
Mon Feb 18 14:33:05 GMT 2008

Julian Field wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> Tom G. Christensen wrote:
>> Julian Field wrote:
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>> Hugo van der Kooij wrote:
>>>> * PGP Signed by an unverified key: 02/17/08 at 16:16:02
>>>> That installs the required package with an acceptable kludge. It does
>>>> satisfy my wish to avoid the --force option.
>>> Slight snag. This package was put together by someone who doesn't 
>>> actually understand what they are doing. They have got round the 
>>> clashing file problems by putting it into the "vendorperl" instead of 
>>> "perl" tree. But the "perl" tree is earlier in @INC than "vendorperl".
>> Careful now. Dag is well aware of this issue and has stated many times 
>> that there is no good solution for RHEL < 5.
> But how am I supposed to produce a set of RPMs that work for RHEL4 and 
> RHEL5? I don't want to produce yet another different distribution.
I didnt imply you did.
However you asserted in no uncertain terms that Dag was not aware of 
this problem when the RPMforge package was created and that the package 
was somehow wrong.
To my knowledge he is acutely aware of this issue and he very 
deliberately puts things in vendor_perl because putting it anywhere else 
makes it impossible to install the package due to file conflicts.
Upgrading core perl modules on RHEL < 5 is not possible via RPM because 
of the INC path issue, using --force to overwrite the files from the 
perl package to do it is just another (even worse) kludge (though not as 
bad as using CPAN).

You also asserted that Hugo would have problem due to this issue, I 
think I've shown that he will not as he is using CentOS 5.1.


More information about the MailScanner mailing list