From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 10 16:32:10 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67A5B7D1 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:32:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailout.easydns.com (mailout.easydns.com [64.68.201.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1DFB3A96 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:32:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailout.easydns.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FEB412EF60 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:25:17 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailout.easydns.com Received: from mailout.easydns.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailout.easydns.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tSHDmnErrZgg for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx1.hayers.org (cpc4-tilb8-2-0-cust163.basl.cable.virginm.net [80.193.15.164]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailout.easydns.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9595412EEB3 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:25:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx1.hayers.org (mx1.hayers.org [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.hayers.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA949B54206 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:25:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hayers.org; s=HAYERS; t=1415636713; bh=9BmdmT+dPH7zy6VnRM/k+RQtpvhgsqssuRVcfHJs28o=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=W7jWuFIuptyS6rqwpRpZe9AX5LQvJIiznKhqPgWgF7PuYufxHJCG6WNlTaypeDmtG YIeQjJPGpAtSSFLEUwanfnHqIB9lz7lVm+tTcLZVB101YrgqhxmUmXrMamgr1XyTQH su6KpneEvedYtDpulPaeNEWisC1x/kTP9Lte7HVo= X-Virus-Scanned: HCF-Sophos-SpamAssassin at hayers.org Received: from mx1.hayers.org ([127.0.0.1]) by mx1.hayers.org (mx1.hayers.org [127.0.0.1]) (HCF-Sophos-SpamAssassin, port 10024) with ESMTP id t5B3n7yu3YfG for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:24:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.0.2] (zeus.hayers.org [192.168.0.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: gary) by mx1.hayers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C23CBB54181 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:24:56 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=hayers.org; s=HAYERS; t=1415636696; bh=9BmdmT+dPH7zy6VnRM/k+RQtpvhgsqssuRVcfHJs28o=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=So14Z4qVkjI0ZDftxId62gVC0klvJ8Oy6av52AITHW4L02NEhADAUWkCUsY8CythI CbUzriDb20Ni7NnfllXIoq3CIRZPoEbc4dMZNORagXaBE4sGve7RnrAcQUOwWxu6DC kwrvV5OEqlg8NoObUZZFNRSJL+C2OpnTmuWXqHF8= Message-ID: <5460E6CE.8000707@hayers.org> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:24:46 +0000 From: "Gary J. Hayers" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: postfix catch-22... References: <54608CF8.4000301@freebsd.org> <20141110064347.46c3080a@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20141110064347.46c3080a@scorpio> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:32:10 -0000 On 10/11/2014 11:43, Jerry wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:01:28 +0000, Matthew Seaman stated: > >> Dear maintainer, >> >> Had an issue with updating from 2.11.1_4,1 to 2.11.3_1,1: it looks like >> you can't win with the ownership of /var/spool/postfix: >> >> On restart after updating the package: >> >> {{{ >> smtp-2:/var/spool/postfix:# service postfix restart >> postfix/postfix-script: stopping the Postfix mail system >> postsuper: fatal: scan_dir_push: open directory defer: Permission denied >> postfix/postfix-script: fatal: Postfix integrity check failed! >> }}} >> >> Googling shows this to be a problem with the ownership of >> /var/spool/postfix. One 'chown postfix /var/spool/postfix' later, and >> postfix will now at least start, but it clearly isn't happy about it. >> >> {{{ >> smtp-2:/var/spool/postfix:# chown postfix . >> smtp-2:/var/spool/postfix:# service postfix restart >> postfix/postfix-script: fatal: the Postfix mail system is not running >> postfix/postfix-script: warning: not owned by root: /var/spool/postfix >> postfix/postfix-script: starting the Postfix mail system >> }}} >> >> {{{ >> smtp-2:/var/spool/postfix:# postfix check >> postfix/postfix-script: warning: not owned by root: /var/spool/postfix >> smtp-2:/var/spool/postfix:# ls -ld /var/spool/postfix >> drwx------ 16 postfix postfix 16 Nov 10 00:27 /var/spool/postfix/ >> }}} >> >> It seems from the pkg-plist that postfix:postfix and 0700 are the >> intended ownership and permissions: >> >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/mail/postfix/pkg-plist?r1=372370&r2=372369&pathrev=372370 >> >> However updating via pkg(8) didn't seem to pick up the ownership change >> on /var/spool/postfix -- it got the chmod to 0700 though. >> >> pkg(8) not behaving quite right aside, I'm not convinced that >> postfix:postfix and 0700 is correct for /var/spool/postfix -- it used to >> be root:postfix and move 0755, which seems to allow postfix to run >> without complaint: >> >> {{{ >> smtp-2:/var/spool/postfix:# chmod 755 . >> smtp-2:/var/spool/postfix:# chown root . >> smtp-2:/var/spool/postfix:# postfix check >> smtp-2:/var/spool/postfix:# service postfix restart >> postfix/postfix-script: stopping the Postfix mail system >> postfix/postfix-script: starting the Postfix mail system >> }}} >> >> Cheers, >> >> Matthew >> > > mail_version = 2.12-20141020 reported error with file permissions also; > although it did start. > I have just updated to postfix-2.11.3_2,1 and am seeing none of these issues. HTH, -- Regards, Gary J. Hayers gary@hayers.org PGP Signature http://www.hayers.org/pgp "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."