MailScanner on yum repository

Julian Field jkf at
Wed Jan 9 14:45:09 GMT 2008

Hash: SHA1


I have to admit I can't find the instructions you sent me, sorry.
We need to solve the dependency problem; if I set up a repo, people are 
going to use it, and they are going to assume that it works perfectly.
So we need these problems solved first.
Any thoughts?


Jason Ede wrote:
> From: mailscanner-bounces at [mailscanner-bounces at] On Behalf Of Hugo van der Kooij [hvdkooij at]
> Sent: 05 January 2008 19:44
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: Re: MailScanner on yum repository
> Hash: SHA1
> Jason Ede wrote:
>> Hugo,
>> When do you plan to put 4.66 onto the yum respository?
> Who knows. I am still not clear on what works best. But I would say it
> is rather obvious I would prefer to have a yum repository on the
> MailSanner site if none of the regular repositories are willing to pick
> it up.
> I allready forwarded the manual to create a repository to Jules. And it
> is small enough to fit on one of those annoying yellow sticky pieces of
> papers some people will stick to their monitor.
> But there is the problem of dependencies. So far I have come up with the
>  following scenarios:
>  1. Forget about it. Not realy what I wish for but it is an option that
> must be listed just for arguments sake.
>  2. Use a minimal set of packages in the repository and rely on other
> repositories. That might break things every now and again untill it is
> fixed in a new beta and official release in due time.
> A partial fix is to be more strict on which packages are acceptable by
> adding more version checks. Something like:
> Requires: perl-MailTools >= 1.7, perl-MailTools < 2.0
> (This should forbid one to install a 2.x version.)
> Or use a very strict list of tested version. So in this case it would read:
> Requires: perl-MailTools = 1.77
>  3. Use a big repository and add tested package that are working well
> with RHEL/Centos for example and just use that repository next to
> RHEL/Centos itself. No more need to add another repository.
> At this point both options 2 and 3 have their own merits and challenges.
> I tend to lean towards option 2 as it is propably much less work in the
> long run.
> -
> I personally prefer option 2 and I think specifying min and max versions of libraries would be a good idea as it would solve most of the I've just updated and MailScanner doesn't work issues.
> As you've set one up already how much work is it to update the repository with a new release once it comes out? I'm guessing as long as the requirements don't change too much that its a relatively trivial task that can be automated to some extent?
> Jason


- -- 
Julian Field MBCS CITP CEng
jkf at
Teaching Systems Manager
Electronics & Computer Science
University of Southampton
SO17 1BJ, UK

Version: PGP Desktop 9.7.0 (Build 1012)
Comment: (pgp-secured)
Charset: ISO-8859-1


This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list