Re: [Dovecot] Login user doesn't exist: dovecot
On Thursday 19 Jan 2006 22:37, Willem Riede wrote:
On 01/19/2006 05:11:30 PM, Anne Wilson wrote:
I think that maybe I should uninstall it and start again.
Now that you're running Fedora you should use a RPM to install dovecot. I can help you with that by getting you my working beta1 src.rpm to rebuild, if you like.
Hi, William. Thanks for the offer. I'm a bit puzzled at the moment as to where I've actually got to. This is what's happened:
I had original made an rpm with checkinstall, so I removed the dovecot user, so that a new install would set it up with the expected UID and GID, and removed the rpm.
My 'bright' idea was that I would install the official Fedora 0.99.14, then install 1.0bet1 over it. I had been assured earlier that it would install over the executables, so it seemed reasonable.
I got 0.99.14 on, but could not find the dovecot.conf.example or dovecot.conf to check paths, which worried me a bit, so I thought that if I attempted a login it would give me errors that would define a path. For the first time ever, it logged in! What's more, I can see my imap directories on another box.
The only dovecot.conf that I know about is the copy that was in /home/anne. What do you think is happening?
If all is working I will leave well alone. This is to be a temporary mail server while I do an upgrade. I don't want to do any more work on it than I need to, because I will be doing it over again, for a permanent install, on the upgraded box in a week or so.
Anne
Registered Linux User No.293302 (http://counter.li.org/)
On Thursday 19 Jan 2006 22:37, Willem Riede wrote:
Now that you're running Fedora you should use a RPM to install dovecot. I can help you with that by getting you my working beta1 src.rpm to rebuild, if you like.
I personally have to disagree with this sentiment. While I do
happily use RPM packages some of the time, when I am running business-
critical applications like email servers, web servers, database
servers and the like, I _always_ compile from source.
Why? Because I want to know exactly how the binary was built. I
want to know that it's specifically compiled for my particular
machine. I've had too many weird problems with RPM packages - and
DEB packages for that matter - that proclaimed themselves to be i586
or i686 when in fact they were i386.
What it really comes down to is not always trusting a third-party
package maintainer. I know there are lots of good packages out
there, but I'm responsible for my systems, and I have to fix them
when they break, and explain to my boss why no one could get their
email for 3 hours.
Roger Weeks
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Roger Weeks wrote:
Why? Because I want to know exactly how the binary was built. I want to know that it's specifically compiled for my particular machine. I've had too many weird problems with RPM packages - and DEB packages for that matter - that proclaimed themselves to be i586 or i686 when in fact they were i386.
If your x86-based machine is having "weird problems" other than simply running a couple % slower on i386-compiled code, you have a lot more worries than just software or compilers. <evil grin>
(I'm not playing devil's advocate, just the part of pedant wrt the -- perhaps unintended -- inference that i386-compatible binaries have problems on newer x86 architectures. They shouldn't; rather, they just run a fraction slower, because the better extended opcodes introduced in the 486 and later lines are not being used.)
-- -- Todd Vierling tv@duh.org tv@pobox.com todd@vierling.name
Am Freitag, 20. Januar 2006 18:43, schrieb Todd Vierling:
They shouldn't; rather, they just run a fraction slower, because the
Has anyone ever measured this on an IMAP server? I doubt it would be noticed on a busy IMAP server running on recent hardware, as I imagine disk access times to be responsible for most of the delay during request processing.
Although dovecot might be an exeption with its indexes which will probably need a bit more CPU power in favour of fewer disk accesses.
Greetings,
Gunter
-- +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- http://aachen.uni-dsl.de/ - Der direkte Draht in's Hochschulnetz! + +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Eagles may soar but weasels aren't sucked into jet engines! +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+PGP-verschlüsselte Mails bevorzugt! +
On Jan 20, 2006, at 9:43 AM, Todd Vierling wrote:
If your x86-based machine is having "weird problems" other than simply running a couple % slower on i386-compiled code, you have a lot
more worries than just software or compilers. <evil grin>(I'm not playing devil's advocate, just the part of pedant wrt the -- perhaps unintended -- inference that i386-compatible binaries have
problems on newer x86 architectures. They shouldn't; rather, they just run a fraction slower, because the better extended opcodes introduced in
the 486 and later lines are not being used.)
I know that's supposed to be the case, but I've had serious problems
getting various RPMs working on dual-processor Xeon systems. In all
cases these were i386 rpms. When I either found i686 rpms or
compiled from source myself, the problems went away...
Roger
On 01/20/2006 07:34:09 AM, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Thursday 19 Jan 2006 22:37, Willem Riede wrote:
On 01/19/2006 05:11:30 PM, Anne Wilson wrote:
I think that maybe I should uninstall it and start again.
Now that you're running Fedora you should use a RPM to install dovecot. I can help you with that by getting you my working beta1 src.rpm to rebuild, if you like.
Hi, William. Thanks for the offer. I'm a bit puzzled at the moment asto
where I've actually got to. This is what's happened:I had original made an rpm with checkinstall, so I removed the dovecotuser,
so that a new install would set it up with the expected UID andGID, and
removed the rpm.My 'bright' idea was that I would install the official Fedora 0.99.14,then
install 1.0bet1 over it. I had been assured earlier that it wouldinstall
over the executables, so it seemed reasonable.I got 0.99.14 on, but could not find the dovecot.conf.example ordovecot.conf
to check paths, which worried me a bit, so I thought thatif I attempted a
login it would give me errors that would define apath. For the first time
ever, it logged in! What's more, I can seemy imap directories on another
box.The only dovecot.conf that I know about is the copy that wasin /home/anne.
What do you think is happening?If all is working I will leave well alone. This is to be a temporarymail
server while I do an upgrade. I don't want to do any more work onit than I
need to, because I will be doing it over again, for apermanent install, on
the upgraded box in a week or so.
On Fedora, there are a couple of minor differences in how dovecot gets
installed which means a fedora-specific .spec file and some small patches. It
is not efficient for everybody to dicover that for themselves, hence my offer
to leverage what I've done. Installing my rpm would create the dovecot user
and put certificates where fedora wants them, for instance.
Up to you. Willem Riede.
participants (5)
-
Anne Wilson
-
Gunter Ohrner
-
Roger Weeks
-
Todd Vierling
-
Willem Riede