Bug 888781
| Summary: | Update to PowerDNS 3.1 in EPEL5 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora EPEL | Reporter: | Nils Breunese <nils> |
| Component: | pdns | Assignee: | Morten Stevens <mstevens> |
| Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | el5 | CC: | mstevens |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-12-19 13:51:27 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Nils Breunese
2012-12-19 13:25:38 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > EPEL6 has pdns-3.1, but EPEL5 is still on pdns-2.9.22. As far as I know > PowerDNS 3.1 contains many bug fixes over 2.9.22. Could EPEL5 be updated to > PowerDNS 3.1 as well please? You're right, pdns 3.1 contains many bug fixes. But it's not possible to build pdns 3.1 on EPEL5, because the boost version shipped with RHEL 5 is incompatible with PowerDNS 3.0 and 3.1. Thanks for understanding. PowerDNS provides RPM packages for Red Hat on http://www.powerdns.com/content/downloads.html and there are third party RPM builds available on http://www.monshouwer.eu/download/3rd_party/pdns-server/el5/ Would it be possible to provide a package with static libraries for EPEL5? (In reply to comment #2) > Would it be possible to provide a package with static libraries for EPEL5? We do not ship packages with static libs. (Fedora Packaging Guidelines) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2 says: "In general, packagers are strongly encouraged not to ship static libs unless a compelling reason exists." That does not sound like it's not allowed to distribute packages with static libraries. I don't know who gets to decide what a 'compelling reason' is, but not distributing an unsupported version of something as critical as DNS server software sounds pretty compelling to me. (In reply to comment #4) > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries_2 says: "In general, packagers are > strongly encouraged not to ship static libs unless a compelling reason > exists." That does not sound like it's not allowed to distribute packages > with static libraries. I don't know who gets to decide what a 'compelling > reason' is, but not distributing an unsupported version of something as > critical as DNS server software sounds pretty compelling to me. Such a reason would be a security vulnerability, if we are not able to backport the security fix. |