[Dovecot] OT - Re: Dovecot 1.1.x and 1.2.x differencies

[Ed W]

>> Gentoo supports just as many:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions#Architecture_support
>>      
> Yes, but Gentoo isn't supplying binaries.  The amount of project time/effort
> to get all those Debian binaries compiled and out the door is gargantuan
> compared to the Gentoo source model.  My point was that building binaries is
> one of the reasons it takes Debian so long to get a new release out.  AFAIK,
> Gentoo isn't shackled with this issue.
>    

Hmm, not as much as you think.  Actually you can kind of turn Redhat 
into Gentoo if instead of distributing the actual binaries, instead you 
distribute the SRPMS and let the user build the software locally...  If 
we just hold that thought for a moment (and kick some holes in the 
idea...) we can see that we would still need to build the binaries to 
check that the SRPMS actually build correctly.  And more importantly we 
need to build them all in random permutations to check that other 
packages work ok in conjunction with them!

Gentoo is somewhat more complicated than this example because a given 
"package" can usually build more or less functionality by enabling 
option flags (USE flags) and hence testing a package is stable really 
involves considering not just whether the whole system will build ok 
with (say) Dovecot installed, but also whether it will all build 
correctly with Dovecot installed, but with/without SSL support, 
with/without POP support, etc, etc

So, I think all of the packaging options all have a good deal of 
complexity and all deal with it very well all things considered...  
Definitely though Gentoo does not just release a new source package and 
mark it stable without quite a number of binaries having been built from 
that package...


(Just to cover the flip side of this - people also get over hung up 
about binaries not being provided by upstream.  I have a lot of servers 
to manage due to excessive use of vservers as a virtualisation option - 
what I do is use a common set of configurations across servers (or at 
least a minimal set, say one for web servers, another for mail servers) 
and then build packages only once and hence most servers simply pull 
down binaries.  This means I can test on a single machine and then once 
that's verified as ok the other machines pull binaries down, much like a 
Redhat/Debian machine does)

>>> 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.
>>>        

Do you not think this is really a function of two main reasons:

1) Finite developers. Manpower is limited

2) Preference for correctness over "freshness"

Point 2) means that they tend not to call something stable until there 
is no reported bug at all filed against it with respect to any other 
stable package on any architecture?  This seems to cause a lot of non 
trivial packages to wait a long time before being bumped simply due to 
the number of possible dependencies and the effect of point 1) above?

I'm not sure it's "wrong", it's just not always what YOU want..?  I know 
it doesn't suit me, but then again I'm just one data point...


> is fine.  They just need to be Johnny on the spot WRT getting the new releases
> into backports in a timely manner.  With Dovecot they're actually not that
> bad.

Seems to my uneducated eye that a lot of users of these "stability over 
freshness" distros (ie Debian/Redhat) actually seem to want "freshness" 
for large chunks of their system and end up patching in a bunch of extra 
repos which then in a way seem kind of counter to the ethos of the 
distro they chose in the first place?

It seems like a compromise would be for the likes of Debian/Redhat to 
have a clear split between "Apps" and "System" and offer the option to 
stay "fresh but tested" on the apps repo, but "stable and mouldy" on the 
System repo?


Anyway, Linux is all about choice so it's great all these options 
exist.  I think it would be even better if we could try and get more of 
the distros to pull in the same direction mind... but it seems to be 
slowly getting there.  Those who have strong unix kung-foo, definitely 
checkout a source based distro such as Gentoo, it's not really useful to 
those who just want a point and click system (most of the world), but 
for those who can dig a little deeper it's an excellent and often 
overlooked option!

Good luck

Ed W