Re: Bug#221855: qmail/pop/getmail affected
Hi folks,
sorry if this is too "non-technical", but ...
we're running "testing" (Kernel 2.4.21-4-386) on several machines and a
recent upgrade caused us unexpected troubles with that "ld.so:
Incorrectly built binary ..." message.
We are using a custom-compiled qmail with qmail-pop3d plus getmail as a
fetchmail-replacement (getmail is run in a very weird configuration that
uses qmail-inject to deliver the emails since we have to forward some of
the emails to remote systems as well)
After the upgrade neither pop3 nor getmail worked liked before.
Everything broke!
>From several posts I can see that this obviously has to do with the
"injected" error-message that is misinterpreted by several tools and
clients.
Maybe I'm wrong here (because I don't understand what changed [ie had to
change] under the hood), but I simply expected, that (like in the past)
after an upgrade our systems continue to work as before without tweaking
a lot (or even recompiling applications that have been running
flawlessly for years). A little configuration-work and tuning after an
upgrade is OK, but is THIS really necessary?
Plus: Did I overlook something or did that change just happen without
any warning whatsoever? We caused a mail-flood in the night following
the upgrade since I only saw that something is not working as expected
in the morning!
As an emergency reaction I downgraded libc6 to 2.3.2-9 with dpkg (which
causes a lot of errors for apt, but at least the mail-system works
again!
I would really appreciate if anybody could tell me how to avoid those
errors with 2.3.2ds1-10 (and up) without having to recompile
applications! (from my point of view that error message should simply
disappear - no matter how it is done! Apparently it worked without that
message until a few days ago without any problem at all)
Thank you in advance for any help you can offer!
Best regards,
Alexander
BTW: We're about to roll out Backup Exec 9.1 and have to install the
remote-agent on at least one of our debian machines. I guess I'll run
into the same problems as others, right?
Reply to: