AW: SV: Perl problems on Fedora 9 SOLVED

Eli Wapniarski eli at
Thu May 7 08:41:46 IST 2009

On Thursday 07 May 2009 10:13:55 Oliver Falk wrote:
> Hi Jules!
> Julian Field wrote:
> > I will happily help you out, provided I can see what the problems are, 
> > and if enough people are affected by the problem. I'm slightly loathed 
> > to spend lots of time solving packaging problems if only 3 people are 
> > still using Fedora 9 in the first place, I'm sure you understand :-)
> > 
> > *If* I get time in the next day or two to install Fedora 9 and try to do 
> > a clean install, I'll see what I can do and put out a beta of the next 
> > version of MailScanner that will work for you folks.
> > 
> > But no promises, I do have a day job to do as well, which is pretty busy 
> > right now!
> I don't see a reason to take a look at Fedora 9, as long as there isn't 
> a large userbase! As already stated, F9 will EOL soon...
> Better go with F10 and F11.
> I still would like to know how large the Fedora + MS userbase is. Is it 
> reasonable to get MS into Fedora!?

How to tell how many Fedora users are using Mailscanner? Unknown. How popular is Fedora? A good indication can be found at:

How many Sysadmins using Fedora are aware of Mailscanner? Unknown.

Worthwhile to package Mailscanner in Fedora. Absolutely.

By the way....

I'm working on modifying the specs for the packages as they relate to Fedora (at least release 10). So that:

1) the .rpmacro file that is generated at the beginning of the install is not required

2) skipped packages (ie documentation is included)

3) Those modules that are architecture dependant will be rebuilt and labled for the specific architecture.

I'm doing it currently for pesonal curiosity's sake. If interested as to what I found. And what was required to get manual builds of the perl modules please let me know.


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