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

[Stan Hoeppner]

Charles Marcus put forth on 6/16/2010 6:29 AM:
> On 2010-06-16 1:15 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Charles Marcus put forth on 6/15/2010 12:44 PM:
>>
>>> Waiting almost always keeps me from any major bugs from new packages
>>> (one exception was a minor update to mailman that changed directory
>>> locations), and still lets me stay up to date with the latest stable
>>> releases.
> 
>> I waited "forever" to get hold of 1.2.10 in the form of the backport for
>> Debian Lenny, which was the first 1.2.x backport available IIRC (I hate
>> installing apps from source for many reasons).
> 
> Again - this is why I have never been inclined to even give debian a
> try... with gentoo, with a very few minor exceptions, the most I've ever
> had to wait was a few weeks...

I run Debian Stable.  If I were to run Debian Testing I'd have much more up to
date packages available.  Call me conservative I guess.  On a positive note,
Debian Stable, as far behind as it is, has _much_ newer packages than RHEL and
some other "stable" or "enterprise" distros.

>> Once I installed it I almost immediately found problems with 
>> performance. I reported the symptoms here, and within a day or two 
>> Timo identified the cause relating to mbox processing and fixed it.
>> It took a couple/three weeks IIRC before the 1.2.11 backport with
>> this fix was available. I installed it and it fixed my problems
>> instantly.
> 
> What does this have to do with sticking with 'really stable' 1.1.x? You
> do realize that 1.1.x had any number of similar situations with certain
> releases, right?

The point is that waiting a few days or weeks after a release for the other
guinea pigs to find the problems doesn't always guarantee you won't run into a
bug, as I describe above.  1.2.10 had been out for quite some time, months
IIRC, before Debian had a Lenny backport of 1.2.10 available which, I
installed as soon as it hit the FTP.  I found problems and reported them.
This was many weeks or months after the general release of 1.2.10 IIRC.

> We are not in disagreement, we just apparently do things differently. I
> prefer the 'rolling release' type of system that always has *everything*
> reasonably up to date, and gentoo gives me that.

I actually would prefer a rolling release system for some things.  The problem
as I see it with Debian is they support so darn many architectures the sheer
weight of compiling all the packages and what not prevents them from doing
anything stable quickly.  There may be other causes for this as well.  They
actually put up a poll recently asking users what release cycle they prefer.
The options were from 6 months to over 2 years, but no rolling release option.
 The only mid life updates Stable gets are security updates to current package
revs.  If you want newer packages for a stable release, the only options are
backports or installing from source.  Sometimes you can directly install a
package from Testing, but it's a crap shoot, as you have to be running a
similar kernel rev, and more importantly, you have to have the same rev of gcc
and many libraries.  This is one of the reasons backports stays pretty busy.
Debian Stable has been averaging about 2 years between releases.  Two years is
a _LONG_ damn time to wait for a new rev of say, Dovecot.  However, IIRC,
Dovecot 2.0 is in Debian Testing.  Testing should turn to Stable within the
next 6 months or so, as the current Stable (Lenny) was released in Jan 2009.
Jan 2011 will be the two year mark.

What's the ETA for the first stable release of Dovecot 2.0?  Less than 6 months?

-- 
Stan