[Dovecot] dovecot tring to load sql modules

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Tue Aug 15 04:12:56 EEST 2006

On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 09:58:42AM -0700, Frank Cusack wrote:
> >>I agree with both sides!
> >
> >No, you don't :)
> Yes I do.

You don't agree with me, do you? If you do, then you agree on the
above, too, so you don't agree, but still you say you do, but then if
you do, <repeat until you get dizzy>

Yes, it's a paradoxon and you're caught right in the middle of it :)

> - packaging is limited, you can't satisfy everyone if source code
>  isn't modular enough
> - you shouldn't be required to pull in deps from limited packaging
>  capabilities

packaging != linking

> >>It seems rather thick headed to say "just add mysql, postgresql
> >>and sqlite, I say it's ok therefore what's the problem".
> >
> >This is twisting my words, I explained why the matter is as it is, I
> >didn't relay anyone on blind trust.
> No, you didn't just explain why it is, you berated the OP for not
> installing the dependencies.

I didn't write a book on it, but I did explain that fulfilling
everyone's request on modularity results in infinitely many different

> >>A better response would be, "packaging limitations require building
> >>against mysql et al. to support a larger userbase, if that doesn't
> >>suit you, build your own rpm, it's quite easy".
> >
> >No, it's not packaging limitations,
> Of course it is.  What if you could package multiple variants together
> in one package, selectable at install time?

Please don't confuse packaging with linking. packaging is just putting
the pieces together. The OP screwed up his system because the linking
dependencies were ripped apart (which were mirrored into package
dependencies). The same thing would had happened if he had built
himself into /usr/local and later decided to remove mysql libs.

Same "bug", no packaging involved => unrelated to "packaging limitations"

> prelinking seems marginal to me, and in addition it's only done on Linux,
> not the other platforms that dovecot supports.  But I accept that folks
> may consider prelinking useful.

Right, there are Unices out there that also don't known what dynamic
linking is and you need to go static. Is that really an argument in
your favour? :)

> Another alternative is to create stub libraries for LDAP et al.  It would
> even be neat to have some flag that tells the runtime linker to pretend
> those libraries are there but return failure from all function calls,
> however since you can't know the semantics of any library that seems
> like asking too much.

Igit. BTW what exactly are you trying to fix? And why are we wasting
bandwidth? I need to write down on the border 100 times "don't get
involved on non-issues".
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20060815/cc13a9e3/attachment-0001.pgp 

More information about the dovecot mailing list