Installing Postfix version that is newer than offered in the Debian repository.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Installing Postfix version that is newer than offered in the Debian repository.

MickTW8
Hi Postfix users,

I would like to try and install a later version of Postfix (and
postfix-mysql) than the Debian stable (Jessie) repository currently
offers (2.11.3-1). I've looked at building Postfix 3.1 from source, but
I'm finding it hard to follow the instructions. This is wholly down to
*my* lack of understanding regarding the building process and
dependences I would need to build in for my system and no reflection on
the author.

As an alternative to building from source, I am also considering the
easier option of installing version 3.0.4-5 from the Debian testing
source (Stretch) using a pinned source list.  This leaves me with a
question on dependencies.  Should I install postfix dependencies from
the Debian Stretch source list which may upset Jessie's stability, or
instead download them from Jessie which may cause Postfix problems ?

If I were to attempt to build 3.1, would it be better to first install
2.11 and get that up an running? I ask as there may be less dependencies
to build into 3.1, and certainly less to configure if the main.cf and
master.cf already exist.

To sum up, I don't know which way to go, though I'm thinking 3.1 would
be the best route long term. Any suggestions welcomed.


Best wishes,
Mick.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Installing Postfix version that is newer than offered in the Debian repository.

Scott Kitterman-4
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 05:44:45 PM Mick wrote:

> Hi Postfix users,
>
> I would like to try and install a later version of Postfix (and
> postfix-mysql) than the Debian stable (Jessie) repository currently
> offers (2.11.3-1). I've looked at building Postfix 3.1 from source, but
> I'm finding it hard to follow the instructions. This is wholly down to
> *my* lack of understanding regarding the building process and
> dependences I would need to build in for my system and no reflection on
> the author.
>
> As an alternative to building from source, I am also considering the
> easier option of installing version 3.0.4-5 from the Debian testing
> source (Stretch) using a pinned source list.  This leaves me with a
> question on dependencies.  Should I install postfix dependencies from
> the Debian Stretch source list which may upset Jessie's stability, or
> instead download them from Jessie which may cause Postfix problems ?
>
> If I were to attempt to build 3.1, would it be better to first install
> 2.11 and get that up an running? I ask as there may be less dependencies
> to build into 3.1, and certainly less to configure if the main.cf and
> master.cf already exist.
>
> To sum up, I don't know which way to go, though I'm thinking 3.1 would
> be the best route long term. Any suggestions welcomed.

We are close to uploading Postfix 3.1 to Debian Unstable, which means it should
be in Testing (Stretch) soonish.  There are a number of historical differences
between the upstream and Debian approach to packaging postfix that are
substantially narrowed starting in Postfix 3.0.  We're still working on
adapting the Debian packaging and I expect 3.1 to have less difference in this
regard.

I would not recommend updating a Debianized Postfix 2.11.3 to an upstream built
from source Postfix 3.0/3.1.  If you want to go the route of building from
source, I would remove the Debianized version first.

If you choose to go the route of adding Stretch to your sources.list with
appropriate pinning, the dependencies should only be pulled in from Stretch if
they are not present in sufficient version in Jessie.  Do pay close attention at
what is being upgraded and decide for yourself if it is too much to be
comfortable with (for example if the package pulls in a new libc6 version that
would be a sign to be concerned in my opinion).

Another alternative would be to rebuild the Debian  Postifx 3.0 packaging
specifically for Jessie.  If you don't know how to do this,
http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/packaging-tutorial/packaging-tutorial has
some good advice (don't panic about the size of the document, you'll only need
to deal with a small part of it).  This would likely eliminate the need to
upgrade dependencies.

If it were me, I'd to the last option.

For further information on working with the Debianized packaging, I would
suggest contacting a Debian specific support resource as it's not particularly
on topic here.

Scott K
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Installing Postfix version that is newer than offered in the Debian repository.

MickTW8
On 26/03/2016 18:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 05:44:45 PM Mick wrote:
>> Hi Postfix users,
>>
>> I would like to try and install a later version of Postfix (and
>> postfix-mysql) than the Debian stable (Jessie) repository currently
>> offers (2.11.3-1). I've looked at building Postfix 3.1 from source, but
>> I'm finding it hard to follow the instructions. This is wholly down to
>> *my* lack of understanding regarding the building process and
>> dependences I would need to build in for my system and no reflection on
>> the author.
>>
>> As an alternative to building from source, I am also considering the
>> easier option of installing version 3.0.4-5 from the Debian testing
>> source (Stretch) using a pinned source list.  This leaves me with a
>> question on dependencies.  Should I install postfix dependencies from
>> the Debian Stretch source list which may upset Jessie's stability, or
>> instead download them from Jessie which may cause Postfix problems ?
>>
>> If I were to attempt to build 3.1, would it be better to first install
>> 2.11 and get that up an running? I ask as there may be less dependencies
>> to build into 3.1, and certainly less to configure if the main.cf and
>> master.cf already exist.
>>
>> To sum up, I don't know which way to go, though I'm thinking 3.1 would
>> be the best route long term. Any suggestions welcomed.
> We are close to uploading Postfix 3.1 to Debian Unstable, which means it should
> be in Testing (Stretch) soonish.  There are a number of historical differences
> between the upstream and Debian approach to packaging postfix that are
> substantially narrowed starting in Postfix 3.0.  We're still working on
> adapting the Debian packaging and I expect 3.1 to have less difference in this
> regard.
>
> I would not recommend updating a Debianized Postfix 2.11.3 to an upstream built
> from source Postfix 3.0/3.1.  If you want to go the route of building from
> source, I would remove the Debianized version first.
>
> If you choose to go the route of adding Stretch to your sources.list with
> appropriate pinning, the dependencies should only be pulled in from Stretch if
> they are not present in sufficient version in Jessie.  Do pay close attention at
> what is being upgraded and decide for yourself if it is too much to be
> comfortable with (for example if the package pulls in a new libc6 version that
> would be a sign to be concerned in my opinion).
>
> Another alternative would be to rebuild the Debian  Postifx 3.0 packaging
> specifically for Jessie.  If you don't know how to do this,
> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/packaging-tutorial/packaging-tutorial has
> some good advice (don't panic about the size of the document, you'll only need
> to deal with a small part of it).  This would likely eliminate the need to
> upgrade dependencies.
>
> If it were me, I'd to the last option.
>
> For further information on working with the Debianized packaging, I would
> suggest contacting a Debian specific support resource as it's not particularly
> on topic here.
>
> Scott K
>

Hi Scott,

I will follow your advice and have a go at your suggestion of rebuilding
the Debian Postfix 3.0 packaging for Jessie from Stretch source code.
This has veered OT as you mentioned, so I won't say any more except that
I apologise to the others here for making noise and  thank you Scott
much for you help and idea.

Mick.