MailScanner on yum repository

Julian Field MailScanner at
Wed Jan 9 14:46:19 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 MEng CITP CEng
Buy the MailScanner book at

Need help customising MailScanner?
Contact me!
Need help fixing or optimising your systems?
Contact me!
Need help getting you started solving new requirements from your boss?
Contact me!

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654

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