Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:40, Odhiambo WASHINGTON wrote:
- On 08/05/06 22:50 -0700, Fred Harris wrote: | I understand that. It's not dovecot's fault really. | I apologize for ranting here. I think Fedora has a few issues to work | out with this. I think up until this point, there's been a conflict | of interest with the Redhat network and Fedora. Redhat has almost an | incentive to introduce problems into Fedora so that people will pay | them to help them with them. Maybe it will get better now that Fedora | is more on its own.
(Free|Net|Open)BSD's also exist as very stable alternatives for you, just FYI! You don't have to die with Fedora or Redhat.
To make this relevant to the conversion, can you tell us what versions of Dovecot have been included and how they handled the transition from .99x to 1.x in those distros?
If you are talking about the configuration file changes then this is the responsibility of the admin to modify. In FreeBSD at least upgrading required manual editing of the configuration.
FreeBSD has a tool called portupgrade which can be used for automatic configuration. It can be configured to hold the current version of an application (called a port in FreeBSD terminology) so that a working system will not be broken by running a general upgrade.
The current version of Dovecot in the FreeBSD ports system is 1.0 beta 7.
http://www.freshports.org/mail/dovecot
Cheers, Dominic
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com