- Previous message: David Cary Hart: "Re: compile problems on fc3"
- Maybe in reply to: Wietse Venema: "Mailboxes > 2GB"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Wietse Venema (no email)
Date: Thu Jul 21 2005 - 18:39:44 EDT
Matthias Andree:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Matthias Andree:
> > > The original assertion is correct, Postfix isn't prepared to support
> > > large files on systems that chose not to break applications that used
> > > the old 32-bit long or off_t stuff.
> >
> > Unfortunately, you over-simplify. See my other post in this thread
> > on third-party library dependencies, and off_t discrepancies at
> > the interface of libraries built with non-matching file size models.
>
> I don't recall ever having passed off_t arguments or structures
> containing off_t down to a third-party library. Which one that Postfix
> officially supports would that be?
It is not my responsibility to audit other people's library interfaces
for the presence of off_t data types in argument lists or data
structures.
Likewise it is not my responsibility to certify that such data types
won't be introduced where none exist now.
> Not that I'd rank missing large file support in Postfix higher than a
> "cosmetic" bug.
Postfix supports large files just fine. There is no bug.
All you have to do is to ensure that all the libraries are OK before
you build Postfix with large file support. Turning it on by default
would just add to the DLL hell misery of SASL and Berkeley DB.
Wietse
|
|
|