On 01-02-2005 14:59, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 1.2.2005, at 14:54, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
To confuse Dovecot versioning even more, I've added "dovecot-stable" module into CVS. This is a version of Dovecot before the recent keyword changes but with several bugfixes backported to it. It's thought to be mostly stable.
Should distro packagers use this or stick to 0.99.x?
Upgrading from 0.99.x to 1.0-tests doesn't work without changes to configuration fie. I was thinking about trying to make some backwards compatibility changes before v1.0 final. And there probably will still be more configuration changes before v1.0. So I'd say keep 0.99.x for now.
That is not a problem with the current installation of dovecot in Debian, IMHO: The config file needs editing to work anyway (it is not using debconf anymore like earlier) and the packaging system takes care of warning if the older file was hand-tuned and thus needs new tweaking (the configuration files are registered as "conffiles" with Debian).
So if upgrading the configuration file is the only issue, I'd say go for it (for Debian-based systems at least).
As a sidenote: It could be helpful for the Debian maintainance if dovecot supported including additional config snippets. That way options like ports to listen on (that depends on the daemons installed and the security policy of the site) could be handled separately from the main config file (with lots of options that do not need tweaking for most users). For Debian it would mean that configuration could be split between automatic package installation routines (using debconf) and more advanced and/or esoteric stuff hand-tunable by the local admin.
- Jonas
--
- Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
- Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm