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?
(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.