On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 03:06:26PM +0100, Philip Hazel wrote:
> The current exim_install script renames old versions as xxxx.O. This is
> probably reasonable for the various utilities, but it is less than ideal
> for the Exim binary itself. For a start, it leaves a window with no exim
> when upgrading. For Exim 4 I am proposing to change things. Anybody have
> any views on this (relatively minor) change of action?
Yes ;)
> 1. Instead of copying the binary as "exim", copy it into the bin
> directory as "exim-4.xx#n". (The #n is the compile number.) If there is
> an existing exim-4.xx#n it will be overwritten unless is it newer than
> the new file.
This is definately a good idea. We just keep old source trees knocking
around (/usr/local/src/exim/exim-xx/..) for this purpose, but keeping
the old binaries all in one place is certainly a step forward.
> 3. If "exim" _is_ in the bin directory, and is a symbolic link, move it
> to point to the new binary. This can be done atomically, by
>
> ln -s temp exim-4.xx
> mv -f temp exim
This strikes me as preferable to a hard link for the reasons you specify
in your subsequent mails.
Although, having said that, I would hope that anyone adminning our mail
servers would know the difference between a hard and soft link! :) For
less experienced admins at smaller sites, I'm sure soft links are a simpler
concept.
> A consequence of this is that old versions will accumulate in the bin
> directory and will need manually removing from time to time. I don't see
> this as a huge problem.
As long as this is mentioned in the docs, as a consequence of typing
'make install' I don't see a problem.
Ollie
--
Oliver Cook Systems Administrator, ClaraNET
ollie@??? 020 7903 3065
