[Dovecot] Dovecot 1.1.x and 1.2.x differencies

[Charles Marcus]

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 be 2 years out of date the moment the next stable is released...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'.

-- 

Best regards,

Charles