[Dovecot] Re: entered bc_action_emit with filelen:
Hi,
I'm still getting the errors below on Debian Etch with Dovecot 1.0.8-4 and Dovecot LDA.
Is this something that's fixed in 1.0.9?
It doesn't seem to have an effect but I'm wary of messages I don't recognise!
Regards,
Alex
Jun 20 14:13:04 server01 deliver: entered bc_action_emit with filelen: 16 Jun 20 14:13:04 server01 deliver: entered bc_action_emit with filelen: 112 Jun 20 14:13:04 server01 deliver: entered bc_action_emit with filelen: 240 Jun 20 14:13:04 server01 deliver: entered bc_action_emit with filelen: 368 Jun 20 14:13:04 server01 deliver: entered bc_action_emit with filelen:
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the MailScanner at Placet.co.uk, and is believed to be clean.
I'm still getting the errors below on Debian Etch with Dovecot 1.0.8-4 and Dovecot LDA.
Is this something that's fixed in 1.0.9?
It doesn't seem to have an effect but I'm wary of messages I don't recognise!
Regards,
Alex
Jun 20 14:13:04 server01 deliver: entered bc_action_emit with filelen: 16 Jun 20 14:13:04 server01 deliver: entered bc_action_emit with filelen: 112 Jun 20 14:13:04 server01 deliver: entered bc_action_emit with filelen: 240 Jun 20 14:13:04 server01 deliver: entered bc_action_emit with filelen: 368 Jun 20 14:13:04 server01 deliver: entered bc_action_emit with filelen:
i havent seen those since ages. i just checked the source of the cmusieve plugin. and this message is commented out there. :)
so 1.0.9 + dovecot-cmusieve plugin should solve this log message.
darix
-- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:24:49PM +0100, Alex Pimperton may have written:
I'm still getting the errors below on Debian Etch with Dovecot 1.0.8-4 and Dovecot LDA.
Is this something that's fixed in 1.0.9?
Those version numbers don't match up with the way dovecot is currently numbered. You are going to have problems using those version numbers after dovecot starts with stable release numbering.
-- http://www.delink.net/ BOFH excuse #46:
waste water tank overflowed onto computer
Brian T Glenn wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:24:49PM +0100, Alex Pimperton may have written:
I'm still getting the errors below on Debian Etch with Dovecot 1.0.8-4 and Dovecot LDA.
Is this something that's fixed in 1.0.9?
Those version numbers don't match up with the way dovecot is currently numbered. You are going to have problems using those version numbers after dovecot starts with stable release numbering.
I'm no expert on Debian (and Ubuntu's) packaging systems but I believe that when a bugs are fixed or the package is patched by the Debian maintainer it gets a -1, -2 etc added to the package name to keep track of the patches.
This is how it's done for all Debian/Ubuntu packages.
Regards,
Alex
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by the MailScanner at Placet.co.uk, and is believed to be clean.
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 07:45:11PM +0100, Alex Pimperton may have written:
Brian T Glenn wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:24:49PM +0100, Alex Pimperton may have written:
Is this something that's fixed in 1.0.9?
Those version numbers don't match up with the way dovecot is currently numbered. You are going to have problems using those version numbers after dovecot starts with stable release numbering.
I'm no expert on Debian (and Ubuntu's) packaging systems but I believe that when a bugs are fixed or the package is patched by the Debian maintainer it gets a -1, -2 etc added to the package name to keep track of the patches.
This is how it's done for all Debian/Ubuntu packages.
This is correct. However, the current version of Dovecot is 1.0.beta9 not 1.0.9. 1.0.9 implies revision 9 of the release version of 1.0, which is not correct. The -1, -2, etc is used to denote a new version of a package with the same upstream code version. This is used mainly for fixing packaging errors or rarely for adding a patch to the upstream code.
When dovecot is released as 1.0, your package version number will not allow you to upgrade because it will think you are already running a newer version.
-- http://www.delink.net/ Q: How many gradual (sorry, that's supposed to be "graduate") students does it take to screw in a light bulb? A: "I'm afraid we don't know, but make my stipend tax-free, give my advisor a $30,000 grant of the taxpayer's money, and I'm sure he can tell me how to do the shit work for him so he can take the credit for answering this incredibly vital question."
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:54:21 -0400 Brian T Glenn <glenn-dovecot@delink.net> wrote:
This is correct. However, the current version of Dovecot is 1.0.beta9 not 1.0.9. 1.0.9 implies revision 9 of the release version of 1.0, which is not correct. The -1, -2, etc is used to denote a new version of a package with the same upstream code version. This is used mainly for fixing packaging errors or rarely for adding a patch to the upstream code.
When dovecot is released as 1.0, your package version number will not allow you to upgrade because it will think you are already running a newer version.
Well, Debian/Ubuntu have a mechanism to get around that (projects will sometimes completely change the way they do version numbering), but in Debian unstable (and probably in Etch), the package versions are actually numbered like '1.0.beta8-4'.
-- Ben Winslow <rain@bluecherry.net>
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:05:52PM -0400, Ben Winslow may have written:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:54:21 -0400 Brian T Glenn <glenn-dovecot@delink.net> wrote:
This is correct. However, the current version of Dovecot is 1.0.beta9 not 1.0.9. 1.0.9 implies revision 9 of the release version of 1.0, which is not correct. The -1, -2, etc is used to denote a new version of a package with the same upstream code version. This is used mainly for fixing packaging errors or rarely for adding a patch to the upstream code.
When dovecot is released as 1.0, your package version number will not allow you to upgrade because it will think you are already running a newer version.
Well, Debian/Ubuntu have a mechanism to get around that (projects will sometimes completely change the way they do version numbering), but in Debian unstable (and probably in Etch), the package versions are actually numbered like '1.0.beta8-4'.
Yes, the 1: mechanism. The OP didn't make it clear that Etch was using anything besides x.y.z.
-- http://www.delink.net/ Why doesn't he throw himself on the ground, saying "You are my Soul, my Better Self, be mine or I stab myself with this pair of protractors"; then she could reply, "Nay, press me not, I am Another's". In that way they could really have some romantic fun and store up things to tell their grandchildren. No style, no breadth, that's the trouble with the modern High School set. -- Robertson Davies, _The Diary of Samuel Marchbanks_
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Brian T Glenn wrote:
On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:05:52PM -0400, Ben Winslow may have written:
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 14:54:21 -0400 Brian T Glenn <glenn-dovecot@delink.net> wrote:
This is correct. However, the current version of Dovecot is 1.0.beta9 not 1.0.9. 1.0.9 implies revision 9 of the release version of 1.0, which is not correct. The -1, -2, etc is used to denote a new version of a package with the same upstream code version. This is used mainly for fixing packaging errors or rarely for adding a patch to the upstream code.
When dovecot is released as 1.0, your package version number will not allow you to upgrade because it will think you are already running a newer version.
Well, Debian/Ubuntu have a mechanism to get around that (projects will sometimes completely change the way they do version numbering), but in Debian unstable (and probably in Etch), the package versions are actually numbered like '1.0.beta8-4'.
Yes, the 1: mechanism. The OP didn't make it clear that Etch was using anything besides x.y.z.
For the record, the current debian version is 1.0.beta9-1
And I don't intend to use the epoch (1:) mechanism. 1.0.beta will be followed by 1.0.rc which will be followed by 1.0.release
-- Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar@debian.org> La Salle Debain - http://www.braincells.com/debian/
participants (5)
-
Alex Pimperton
-
Ben Winslow
-
Brian T Glenn
-
Jaldhar H. Vyas
-
Marcus Rueckert