[Dovecot] Dovecot 1.1.x and 1.2.x differencies
ejs at shubes.net
Tue Jun 15 17:20:15 EEST 2010
Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2010-06-15 6:57 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Too bad the Debian Dovecot maintainer isn't 'The Flash' in getting
>> binaries uploaded. For i386 anyway. He had the AMD64 1.2.11 binary
>> uploaded to backports within a week IIRC. Took something like 2 weeks
>> IIRC before he got the i386 binary uploaded. If it weren't for the
>> fact that one of the bugs fixed was 'critical' for me (I actually
>> contributed to discovery), I'd probably not have cared. Some
>> debian-user list folks say I should simply be grateful we have
>> current Dovecot revs in backports period. I say if we didn't have
>> stuff in backports nobody would use Debian, as all the packages would
>> be 2 years out of date the moment the next stable is released...
> This is precise reason I have never been inclined to try Debian other
> than once over 5 years ago (and why I like gentoo so much)...
> I do understand the argument, and it's apparently worked well for them,
> but imo the 'hard' line should be drawn more against the *system*
> (compiler, kernel, system tools, etc), and not so much the software that
> rides on top.
> I'm still running multiple gentoo servers that were originally installed
> 7 years ago, and are currently running mostly up to date versions of
> everything. I keep all of the *system* packages at 'stable', and
> applications at 'unstable', and it has worked flawlessly, with only a
> few minor bumps easily solved using google and/or the user forums. Yeah,
> 7 years is a long time hardware wise, but if it still works well and
> handles the load well, it fits my criteria of 'if it ain't broke don't
> fix it'.
Charles, thanks for the making the distinction between the OS (*system*)
and applications. I've believed for years that there is a difference
there, and this is one good example of why.
More information about the dovecot