Re: INN, Cleanfeed and Debian Hamm
In article <[🔎] Pine.LNX.3.96.980901144234.23597C-100000@brahe.midco.net>,
Nathan E Norman <finn@midco.net> wrote:
>On 1 Sep 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> : Well actually I am waiting with a new release for inn 2.2 or so ..
>
>Great! I'm glad to hear this. 2.0 was frighteningly buggy, and I
>haven't been bold enough to try 2.1
I'm running 2.1-cvs-current on our production news server right now,
and it seems pretty stable (well it has already run 20 minutes ;))
> : I don't want package 2.1 yet, because it still has bugs
> : and is not too fast (the overview implementation is a lot slower).
> : I've only tested the storage-enabled version sofar, I'm going to
> : run the normal version on one news server tomorrow. We'll see how that
> : goes.
>
>You're speaking of CNFS here, right?
The CNFS/timehash enabled versions of inn 2.x have a slow unified overview
implementation. It looks like if you run it in traditional mode there
is no problem as the old overview implementation is used .. but we'll see.
> : Also I have to ask the perl maintainer to package the perl shared
> : library seperate, so that a perl upgrade won't hose your INN system
> : unexpectedly (and force me to release INN in sync with perl).
>
>Is this also the case if I recompile INN 1.7.2 and enable perl support?
Yes.. well .. let me check .. hey, innd was linked statically with
libperl. That's less than optimal, I guess, but it does avoid the problem
I mentioned above. Hmm it will take a bit more memory and diskspace.
I'll have to look into this some more.
>I'm interested in recompiling 1.7.2 for a few reasons, namely cleanfeed
>and the insync patches. How you managed to do such an excellent job
>packaging INN in the forst place is beyond me - it's a complete cluster
>from what I can see.
Thanks ;). Inn wasn't exactly easy to package ..
Mike.
--
"Seed me, Seymour"
-- a random number generator meets the big green mother from outer space
Reply to: