Anyone knows if sendmail patches for Solaris 10 (will) contain configs
or how to stop this kind of patch to be installed.
Under Solaris 9 we had to be careful installing sendmail
patches since these overwrote our sendmail.cf file.
I've seen one patch for Solaris 10 containg sendmail binary, but
not config files. Can I trust that this will be the case (and thus run
smpatch update on my mail server), or do I need to manually
review patches for Solaris 10, so my config files are not overwritten?
[477 byte] By [
klas.h] at [2007-11-26 6:05:48]
# 3
There are Change Requests open to stop sendmail patches overwriting the sendmail configuration file (CR IDs 4829682 and 4687835 (both of these are not publicly viewable on SunSolve as yet)).
>
> And I do like the new smpatch utility to keep
> the system
> updated.Do anyone know if there is any work done on
> this?
I am not sure what exactly you mean by "Do anyone know if there is any work done on this?".
# 4
> There are Change Requests open to stop sendmail
> patches overwriting the sendmail configuration file
> (CR IDs 4829682 and 4687835 (both of these are not
> publicly viewable on SunSolve as yet)).
>
> >
> > And I do like the new smpatch utility to
> keep
> > the system
> > updated.Do anyone know if there is any work done
> on
> > this?
>
> I am not sure what exactly you mean by "Do anyone
> know if there is any work done on this?".
I sthere any wok done to ensure that installing a patch does not
mean overwriting configuration files. In the sendmail case,
I have installed patches that overwrites
/etc/mail/sendmail.cf
They should write a suggested version for update of the configuration,
perphaps
/etc/mail/sendmail.cf.PATCHNO
/etc/mail/submit.cf.PATCHNO
and leave the
/etc/mail/aliases
alone.
If the new binary does not accept your configuration files, it will
just refuse to start, but if a new configuration file is installed, you
will lose mail.
So, is there any work done on patch strategy, so you safely
can install patches and not lose your local configuration changes.
klash at 2007-7-6 13:33:41 >
