Bug 150805

Summary: init script failure
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Thomas Zehetbauer <thomasz>
Component: postfixAssignee: Thomas Woerner <twoerner>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 3   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-03-18 13:42:51 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Thomas Zehetbauer 2005-03-10 19:29:33 UTC
postfix is perfectly fine using
  alias_database = ${default_database_type}:/etc/postfix/aliases
unfortunately /etc/init.d/postfix insists on running
  postaliases `postconf -h alias_database`
that fails in this configuration. The correct solution is to run newaliases
instead or not try to update the aliases db at all.

Comment 1 Thomas Woerner 2005-03-17 18:59:45 UTC
If you modify your alias database you have to run newaliases afterwards.

Comment 2 Thomas Zehetbauer 2005-03-17 21:24:43 UTC
Correct, one has to run newaliases after modifying the aliases file, so why does
/etc/init.d/postfix insist on it's broken implementation of newaliases?

Comment 3 Thomas Woerner 2005-03-18 11:08:15 UTC
The postalias call is there to check if the alias_database entry is correct: 

- syntactically valid
- file/files existance
- correct permissions
- valid db files

If there is an other way to check this, then I will replace it.


Comment 4 Thomas Zehetbauer 2005-03-18 12:59:39 UTC
alias_database = ${default_database_type}:/etc/postfix/aliases
is syntactically valid but causes the current initscript to fail

aliases_database is AFAIK only used by newaliases, the MTA processes use the
databases defined in alias_maps

postfix runs fine without an alias_database, even without alias_maps

Comment 5 Thomas Woerner 2005-03-18 13:42:51 UTC
Ok, then this bz is the same as #149657.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 149657 ***