[Dovecot] Imap folders missing after updating
I just updated from 0.99.14 to 1.0beta2 on FC5 and my my IMAP folders have mainly disappeared in my Thunderbird client. All that's left is Inbox and Trash.
Is there some configuration setting that's now necessary to make the server think an account uses IMAP folders? The way it seemed to work before was that the presense of a Maildir directory in a user's home indicated IMAP. The new server seems to read the Maildir directory but it doesn't recognize all the folders.
Thanks.
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
Ah, the joys of undocumented configuration changes. Used to be Maildir/.subscriptions. Now it's Maildir/subscriptions.
Fred Harris frharris27@yahoo.com wrote: I just updated from 0.99.14 to 1.0beta2 on FC5 and my my IMAP folders have mainly disappeared in my Thunderbird client. All that's left is Inbox and Trash.
Is there some configuration setting that's now necessary to make the server think an account uses IMAP folders? The way it seemed to work before was that the presense of a Maildir directory in a user's home indicated IMAP. The new server seems to read the Maildir directory but it doesn't recognize all the folders.
Thanks.
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:17:09AM -0700, Fred Harris wrote:
Ah, the joys of undocumented configuration changes. Used to be Maildir/.subscriptions. Now it's Maildir/subscriptions.
Except that it is documented.
http://wiki.dovecot.org/UpgradingDovecottwo clicks from the front page.
(I know because I found it when I was doing the upgrade here...)
mm
Fred Harris frharris27@yahoo.com wrote: I just updated from 0.99.14 to 1.0beta2 on FC5 and my my IMAP folders have mainly disappeared in my Thunderbird client. All that's left is Inbox and Trash.
Is there some configuration setting that's now necessary to make the server think an account uses IMAP folders? The way it seemed to work before was that the presense of a Maildir directory in a user's home indicated IMAP. The new server seems to read the Maildir directory but it doesn't recognize all the folders.
Thanks.
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1�/min.
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger�s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
-- Mark E. Mallett | http://www.mv.com/users/mem/ MV Communications, Inc. | http://www.mv.com/ NH Internet Access since 1991 | (603) 629-0000 / FAX: 629-0049
LOL, there are only about a billion web pages that are "2 clicks" from the front page of any site. This is why people still stay in the MS heard. Any number of problems like this would cost most companies thousands of dollars to resolve. It's much cheaper just to pay a company like MS who take upgrade transitions seriously.
"Mark E. Mallett" mem@mv.mv.com wrote: On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:17:09AM -0700, Fred Harris wrote:
Ah, the joys of undocumented configuration changes. Used to be Maildir/.subscriptions. Now it's Maildir/subscriptions.
Except that it is documented.
http://wiki.dovecot.org/UpgradingDovecottwo clicks from the front page.
(I know because I found it when I was doing the upgrade here...)
mm
Fred Harris wrote: I just updated from 0.99.14 to 1.0beta2 on FC5 and my my IMAP folders have mainly disappeared in my Thunderbird client. All that's left is Inbox and Trash.
Is there some configuration setting that's now necessary to make the server think an account uses IMAP folders? The way it seemed to work before was that the presense of a Maildir directory in a user's home indicated IMAP. The new server seems to read the Maildir directory but it doesn't recognize all the folders.
Thanks.
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
-- Mark E. Mallett | http://www.mv.com/users/mem/ MV Communications, Inc. | http://www.mv.com/ NH Internet Access since 1991 | (603) 629-0000 / FAX: 629-0049
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:41 -0700, Fred Harris wrote:
It's much cheaper just to pay a company like MS who take upgrade transitions seriously.
Right, because I know I always deploy a new MAJOR VERSION of software without testing it. </sarcasm> Almost every piece of software I've seen uses a major version bump to indicate that backwards incompatible changes have been made. These don't always (and sometimes can't) have an upgrade path that works for everyone. I'm not saying this is such a case, as I haven't looked at the facts, but it seems excessive to insinuate that Timo doesn't "take upgrade transitions seriously".
Richard
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:41 -0700, Fred Harris wrote:
It's much cheaper just to pay a company like MS who take upgrade transitions seriously.
So go use exchange. It's nice to be humble when you overlook something obvious (like i was
Richard Laager wrote: this morning) instead of throwing a fit about it. You know what is even cheaper than paying MS? Firing your incompetent admin.
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 08:04:15PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:41 -0700, Fred Harris wrote:
It's much cheaper just to pay a company like MS who take upgrade transitions seriously.
Right, because I know I always deploy a new MAJOR VERSION of software without testing it. </sarcasm>
Please do not feed the trolls. They're quite capable of hanging themselves.
/k
-- Josh "Koshua" Goodall "as modern as tomorrow afternoon" joshua@roughtrade.net - FW109
It's getting to be a very big problem with open source software. Andrew Morton who's the lead maintainer of the Linux production kernel has come out claiming that the kernel is getting too buggy. You may not call changing the name of a dependency a bug, but it certainly manifests itself as one.
MS desktop clients update themselves pretty seemlessly. Servers are getting to that level pretty quickly as well. I'm fighting an uphill battle trying convince my clients and peers to adopt open source software and they ask me why? Software that updates itself verses surely Linux hacks who put people down because they don't want to follow a complex 20 step process that's documented in 15 different places.
There's only a limited amount of space for various open source applications. They're pretty much commercial ventures now. There's a big push among packages like Fedora and Debian to virtualize installations with seemless state archival, recovery, and transitions. I suppose that may be more of an issue for the packager than the software developer. I predict that the packages that seemlessly update state across versions will be the only ones that exist in the future.
I guess administrators can make themselves feel important and smart by spending days messing with an update that should really only take a couple of hours, or maybe not even that long.
Joshua Goodall joshua@roughtrade.net wrote: On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 08:04:15PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote:
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 17:41 -0700, Fred Harris wrote:
It's much cheaper just to pay a company like MS who take upgrade transitions seriously.
Right, because I know I always deploy a new MAJOR VERSION of software without testing it.
Please do not feed the trolls. They're quite capable of hanging themselves.
/k
-- Josh "Koshua" Goodall "as modern as tomorrow afternoon" joshua@roughtrade.net - FW109
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:15, Fred Harris wrote:
There's a big push among packages like Fedora and Debian to virtualize installations with seemless state archival, recovery, and transitions. I suppose that may be more of an issue for the packager than the software developer. I predict that the packages that seemlessly update state across versions will be the only ones that exist in the future.
If you are trying to place blame here, I'd look first at the distros that included a pre 1.x package in the first place instead of what happens as it reaches what the developer would call the release version. Having said that, there probably are a vast number of .99.x versions currently in use in FC < 5 versions, RHEL, and Centos, and the change is going to be a problem for a lot of people.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
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.
Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:15, Fred Harris wrote:
There's a big push among packages like Fedora and Debian to virtualize installations with seemless state archival, recovery, and transitions. I suppose that may be more of an issue for the packager than the software developer. I predict that the packages that seemlessly update state across versions will be the only ones that exist in the future.
If you are trying to place blame here, I'd look first at the distros that included a pre 1.x package in the first place instead of what happens as it reaches what the developer would call the release version. Having said that, there probably are a vast number of .99.x versions currently in use in FC < 5 versions, RHEL, and Centos, and the change is going to be a problem for a lot of people.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 00:50, 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.
Unless I'm missing something, RHEL will have the same problem when they do the next full release that contains version-level updates to applications. The difference is just that fedora doesn't backport bugfixes into the old versions for so long. They focus on rolling out the new packages instead so you get the new behavior sooner. Sometimes that is a good thing and someone has to do it.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
Quoting Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com:
Unless I'm missing something, RHEL will have the same problem when they do the next full release that contains version-level updates to applications.
RHEL 3.x no. RHEL 4.x maybe. RHEL 5.x who knows.
They can either change the code to be backwards compatible, or provide an automatic conversion, or (worst case) just try to document the process well and alert everyone to the issues.
In any case, it isn't as blind as someone doing the upgrade now on their own.
The difference is just that fedora doesn't backport bugfixes into the old versions for so long.
There are a lot more differences than that!
-- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin
Go Longhorns!
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:56, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, RHEL will have the same problem when they do the next full release that contains version-level updates to applications.
RHEL 3.x no. RHEL 4.x maybe. RHEL 5.x who knows.
Full version upgrades aren't supported, so I'd expect 5.x to contain a fairly current dovecot and you'll be on your own to convert anything running on your 4.x machine. I'd be very surprised if your 'maybe' for 4.x includes a behavior changing update though - the point of these long-lived distros is that they don't have that kind of change and the side effect is that you don't get new features.
They can either change the code to be backwards compatible, or provide an automatic conversion, or (worst case) just try to document the process well and alert everyone to the issues.
In any case, it isn't as blind as someone doing the upgrade now on their own.
In many cases it's worse. Unless you wade your way through the patches included in the src rpm files you have no idea what code is really in any particular application version. They are still backporting stuff into 3.x apps without bumping app version numbers. However, since the mods don't normally change behavior (or at least intended behavior...) it usually doesn't matter.
The difference is just that fedora doesn't backport bugfixes into the old versions for so long.
There are a lot more differences than that!
Yes, but that's the one that keeps you from sticking to an older FCx version when you don't want surprises from the full-version upgrade. Otherwise there's not much differnce between an end-of-life FC1 and RHEL3 and FC3/RHELEL4.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
Quoting Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:56, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Unless I'm missing something, RHEL will have the same problem when they do the next full release that contains version-level updates to applications.
RHEL 3.x no. RHEL 4.x maybe. RHEL 5.x who knows.
Full version upgrades aren't supported, so I'd expect 5.x to contain a fairly current dovecot and you'll be on your own to convert anything running on your 4.x machine. I'd be very surprised if your 'maybe' for 4.x includes a behavior changing update though - the point of these long-lived distros is that they don't have that kind of change and the side effect is that you don't get new features.
I would also be surprised, but I can't rule it out since I can't (yet) read the future, so I decided to say 'maybe' instead. For the same reason (I can't read the future) I can't say anything useful about RHEL 5.x.
They can either change the code to be backwards compatible, or provide an automatic conversion, or (worst case) just try to document the process well and alert everyone to the issues.
In any case, it isn't as blind as someone doing the upgrade now on their own.
In many cases it's worse.
I guess you can read that either way. If they backport it, it is indeed even more "blind" to the end user. If they don't try to smooth over it, then they will no doubt write the changes up well and it will be much less blind. So it depends on how they do it.
In either case, I think it is "less blind" than someone trying to manage the software on their own without doing due dilligence.
-- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin
Go Longhorns!
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 13:09, Brad Bateman wrote:
Yes, but that's the one that keeps you from sticking to an older FCx version when you don't want surprises from the full-version upgrade. Otherwise there's not much differnce between an end-of-life FC1 and RHEL3 and FC3/RHELEL4.
Surprises? Our company started with RH 7.2 and have moved with each full version to RHEL4 Update 3 with no surprises.
If you didn't run into some weird stuff on RH 8 I have to think you weren't exercising it very hard.
To use FC in a full production environment is IMO, suicidal.
Maybe you missed the significance of my 'end-of-life' comment on the fedoras. There is a huge update turnover at the beginning of an FC life cycle but as you approach the end most of the bugs are fixed and the code base is very near what went into the corresponding RHEL release. The problem is that once the FC version has the bugs fixed, it isn't maintained long afterwords with backported patches for things found later.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
* 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.
-Wash
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
DISCLAIMER: See http://www.wananchi.com/bms/terms.php
--
+======================================================================+
|\ _,,,---,,_ | Odhiambo Washington
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?
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
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
Dominic Marks wrote:
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
Sorry, I meant automatic upgrades, not configuration.
Dom
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
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:03, Dominic Marks wrote:
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
Sorry, I meant automatic upgrades, not configuration.
Did they have one of these for the .99x -> 1.x upgrade and is this a script that could be used elsewhere to make the appropriate syntax changes automatically?
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:03, Dominic Marks wrote:
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
Sorry, I meant automatic upgrades, not configuration.
Did they have one of these for the .99x -> 1.x upgrade and is this a script that could be used elsewhere to make the appropriate syntax changes automatically?
No, and the value of such tools if questionable. I think scripts like this have the potential to be quite dangerous. Besides, its part of the job of the admin :)
Dom
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
* On 09/05/06 16:27 +0100, Dominic Marks wrote:
| Les Mikesell wrote:
| > On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 09:03, Dominic Marks wrote:
| >
| >> >> 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
| >>
| >> Sorry, I meant automatic upgrades, not configuration.
| >
| > Did they have one of these for the .99x -> 1.x upgrade and
| > is this a script that could be used elsewhere to make the
| > appropriate syntax changes automatically?
|
| No, and the value of such tools if questionable. I think scripts like
| this have the potential to be quite dangerous. Besides, its part of
| the job of the admin :)
There are no automatic updates on FreeBSD!
The admin decides to upgrade for a reason and does it manually.
Actually, to start with, FreeBSD never installs any application
services (server apps like dovecot) for you!! You have to know
the need for and install what you want and from there, maintain
it!
-Wash
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
DISCLAIMER: See http://www.wananchi.com/bms/terms.php
--
+======================================================================+
|\ _,,,---,,_ | Odhiambo Washington
* On 09/05/06 08:23 -0500, 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?
Officially, in the ports tree on FreeBSD is 1.0beta3. Has not
been updated by the port maintainer for a while. However,
I have built several systems and I am running 1.0beta7 in all
of them. No problems at all, except for the a dumb moment when
I compiled KQUEUE support, which is known to be broken.
What was the original problem the OP had again? ;)
-Wash
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
DISCLAIMER: See http://www.wananchi.com/bms/terms.php
--
+======================================================================+
|\ _,,,---,,_ | Odhiambo Washington
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 11:16, Odhiambo WASHINGTON wrote:
| | 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?
Officially, in the ports tree on FreeBSD is 1.0beta3. Has not been updated by the port maintainer for a while. However, I have built several systems and I am running 1.0beta7 in all of them. No problems at all, except for the a dumb moment when I compiled KQUEUE support, which is known to be broken. What was the original problem the OP had again? ;)
There are syntax differences in the config file between dovecot .99x as included in fedora versions before FC5 and the 1.x version in FC5, so after a distribution full-level upgrade to FC5 (not really supported but it mostly works...) the mailboxes disappear. The only reason that this is worth so much discussion is that it is going to happen to a lot of people. I'd venture a guess that the largest installed base of dovecot is on fedora, RHEL, and centos that all included the .99 version, because they are so popular.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 12:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
There are syntax differences in the config file between dovecot .99x as included in fedora versions before FC5 and the 1.x version in FC5, so after a distribution full-level upgrade to FC5 (not really supported but it mostly works...) the mailboxes disappear. The only reason that this is worth so much discussion is that it is going to happen to a lot of people.
I hadn't thought about upgrading for a while now since I had hoped most people already had upgraded from 0.99.x. But I guess there are lots of people using it from some distributions..
It would be easy to change the code to fallback to .subscriptions file if subscriptions isn't found, and the same for .customflags -> dovecot-keywords. Although for non-upgrade cases it can cause extra stat() calls which are a bit annoying.
Timo Sirainen wrote:
It would be easy to change the code to fallback to .subscriptions file if subscriptions isn't found, and the same for .customflags -> dovecot-keywords. Although for non-upgrade cases it can cause extra stat() calls which are a bit annoying.
Make the default Configure enable that code by default, so that those of us who can read the Release notes can disable the extra stat() calls... ;-)
John
-- John Peacock Director of Information Research and Technology Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 4501 Forbes Boulevard Suite H Lanham, MD 20706 301-459-3366 x.5010 fax 301-429-5748
On May 10, 2006, at 12:15 AM, John Peacock wrote:
Timo Sirainen wrote:
It would be easy to change the code to fallback to .subscriptions
file if subscriptions isn't found, and the same for .customflags -> dovecot-keywords. Although for non-upgrade cases it can cause extra stat() calls which are a bit annoying.Make the default Configure enable that code by default, so that
those of us who can read the Release notes can disable the extra
stat() calls... ;-)
Extra #ifdefs and mostly-pointless configure options are pretty evil
too :)
Timo Sirainen wrote:
Extra #ifdefs and mostly-pointless configure options are pretty evil too :)
_I_ didn't change the filenames. ;-)
John
-- John Peacock Director of Information Research and Technology Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group 4501 Forbes Boulevard Suite H Lanham, MD 20706 301-459-3366 x.5010 fax 301-429-5748
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On May 10, 2006, at 12:15 AM, John Peacock wrote:
Timo Sirainen wrote:
It would be easy to change the code to fallback to .subscriptions file if subscriptions isn't found, and the same for .customflags -> dovecot-keywords. Although for non-upgrade cases it can cause extra stat() calls which are a bit annoying.
Make the default Configure enable that code by default, so that those of us who can read the Release notes can disable the extra stat() calls... ;-)
Extra #ifdefs and mostly-pointless configure options are pretty evil too :)
How about making the ".subscriptions" name a configure option so that it could be ".subscriptions" or "subscriptions" or (as in our case) ".mailboxlist" (migrated from uw-imap) possibly with variable expansion so people can change where it is stored as well?
Chris
-- --+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+- Christopher Wakelin, c.d.wakelin@reading.ac.uk IT Services Centre, The University of Reading, Tel: +44 (0)118 378 8439 Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 2AF, UK Fax: +44 (0)118 975 3094
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 16:06, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I hadn't thought about upgrading for a while now since I had hoped most people already had upgraded from 0.99.x. But I guess there are lots of people using it from some distributions..
It would be easy to change the code to fallback to .subscriptions file if subscriptions isn't found, and the same for .customflags -> dovecot-keywords. Although for non-upgrade cases it can cause extra stat() calls which are a bit annoying.
This shouldn't really be your problem but the ideal solution might be a .99.99.99 (or so) release including all the changes you can that won't break working installations so an update would fit the 'bugfix only' policy of the enterprise distributions that will be maintained for a long time. And I wouldn't worry about some extra stat()s if they keep existing systems working through the upgrade. Another interesting pool of users will be on the SME server distro (http://www.contribs.org). They haven't quite cut a new release yet but they are working from Centos 4.x base (same as RHEL4.x) which currently has a .99 dovecot. This is an appliance-like distribution with template created config files so syntax changes must be coordinated into the rest of the system.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
Quoting Fred Harris frharris27@yahoo.com:
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.
Maybe you need to check up on what Fedora Project is for. It is for cutting (bleeding) edge developers and users, who don't need a stable OS or "seemless upgrades" (sic).
I think up until this point, there's been a conflict of interest
with the Redhat network and Fedora.
They are two different things, and there is no conflict.
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.
This is pure FUD. First, Red Hat has little to do with FC code. Second, they have little to gain by making a project fail by purposfully introducing bugs. Third, no one pays anyone to fix bugs in FC, and I don't think very many people switch from FC to RHEL for the chance to pay for bug fixes.
Come on, get real. You're talking about a OS distribution that isn't meant to be stable, and a prerelease software package, and you're complaining about problems with it? Get real!
-- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin
Go Longhorns!
* On 08/05/06 22:15 -0700, Fred Harris wrote:
| It's getting to be a very big problem with open source software.
| Andrew Morton who's the lead maintainer of the Linux production
| kernel has come out claiming that the kernel is getting too buggy.
| You may not call changing the name of a dependency a bug, but it
| certainly manifests itself as one.
In the FreeBSD world, such complaints cannot be heard because the
development teams are tightly controlled ;)
| MS desktop clients update themselves pretty seemlessly. Servers
| are getting to that level pretty quickly as well. I'm fighting
| an uphill battle trying convince my clients and peers to adopt
| open source software and they ask me why? Software that updates
| itself verses surely Linux hacks who put people down because they
| don't want to follow a complex 20 step process that's documented
| in 15 different places.
Don't make life difficult for them if you have the budget to run
Windows. I must say it's pretty easy to run Windows, my only
concerns being the security. Let the guys enjoy the easier,
insecure life ;)
| There's only a limited amount of space for various open source
| applications. They're pretty much commercial ventures now.
| There's a big push among packages like Fedora and Debian to
| virtualize installations with seemless state archival, recovery,
| and transitions. I suppose that may be more of an issue for the
| packager than the software developer. I predict that the packages
| that seemlessly update state across versions will be the only ones
| that exist in the future.
I disagree. It's not logical to let that thing called "seamless
upgrade" happen, especially on a critical box. For example,
Microsoft does not recommend that you enable "Automatic Updates"
on servers. Do you know that? Why would you want that to happen
to Unix servers?
| I guess administrators can make themselves feel important and
| smart by spending days messing with an update that should really
| only take a couple of hours, or maybe not even that long.
Well, those administrators who have all the time at hand and who
fear for their jobs would do that. In their conscience, I wonder
if they will feel important doing "nothing", as that is exactly
what they will be doing.
-Wash
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
DISCLAIMER: See http://www.wananchi.com/bms/terms.php
--
+======================================================================+
|\ _,,,---,,_ | Odhiambo Washington
On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:59, Odhiambo WASHINGTON wrote:
Don't make life difficult for them if you have the budget to run Windows.
And a large staff of helpdesk people to keep it running with 3rd party antivirus products, etc.
I must say it's pretty easy to run Windows, my only concerns being the security. Let the guys enjoy the easier, insecure life ;)
I suspect that means you don't actually install your own windows OS or applications and someone else fixes it when it breaks. Our company has had many things break as a result of MS updates.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
* On 09/05/06 08:21 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
| On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 01:59, Odhiambo WASHINGTON wrote:
|
| > Don't make life difficult for them if you have the budget to run
| > Windows.
|
| And a large staff of helpdesk people to keep it running with
| 3rd party antivirus products, etc.
|
| > I must say it's pretty easy to run Windows, my only
| > concerns being the security. Let the guys enjoy the easier,
| > insecure life ;)
|
| I suspect that means you don't actually install your
| own windows OS or applications and someone else fixes
| it when it breaks. Our company has had many things
| break as a result of MS updates.
Hehee!! I don't run Windows at all!!! I am not sure I ever will.
I was inducted into the computing world with BSD Unix and I am
there since my own "epoch" in 1997 ;)
I actually mean to put the word easy as "easy".... they can
click Next-> Next-> Finish without bothering about what goes
on in the background. Is that "easy"? ;) You don't need any
creativity to run Windows. That is "easy", no?
-Wash
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
DISCLAIMER: See http://www.wananchi.com/bms/terms.php
--
+======================================================================+
|\ _,,,---,,_ | Odhiambo Washington
Quoting Odhiambo WASHINGTON odhiambo.raburu@wananchi.com:
Don't make life difficult for them if you have the budget to run Windows. I must say it's pretty easy to run Windows, my only concerns being the security. Let the guys enjoy the easier, insecure life ;)
Anyone who has run a Windows shop with large apps (DB, Exchange, etc) from NT->2000->XP->2003 knows this is bunk. Going from old domains to active directory was easy? Exchange upgrades are easy? Come on guys... Regularly released security patches that break your systems are easy? Right.
Trust me, plenty of people with very deep pockets and high investments in MS products still have a very hard time with upgrades... Life isn't always easier on the other side of the (MS) Windows... (Ouch, now adding bad puns to the list of crimes... Probably get banned from the list for that!)
-- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin
Go Longhorns!
Quoting Fred Harris frharris27@yahoo.com:
It's getting to be a very big problem with open source software.
What is? Users who don't know what they are doing and can't be bothered to learn and/or follow "best practices" or commons sense?
Andrew Morton who's the lead maintainer of the Linux production
kernel has come out claiming that the kernel is getting too buggy.
Unrelated.
You may not call changing the name of a dependency a bug, but it
certainly manifests itself as one.
You may not consider yourself a bug, but you might certainly manifest as one ;) (Ouch, that should get me some flames!)
MS desktop clients update themselves pretty seemlessly. Servers are
getting to that level pretty quickly as well.
Yes, with production software, that is expected.
I'm fighting an uphill battle trying convince my clients and peers
to adopt open source software and they ask me why? Software that
updates itself verses surely Linux hacks who put people down
because they don't want to follow a complex 20 step process that's
documented in 15 different places.
Released production software that has been out for a decade versus a product that hasn't even seen a 1.0 release yet? Surely you don't expect them to be equal in terms of upgrade support!
There's only a limited amount of space for various open source
applications. They're pretty much commercial ventures now.
That hardely even makes sense.
There's a big push among packages like Fedora and Debian to
Fedora and Debian are distributions, not packages. Or maybe you meant "packagers" instead?
virtualize installations with seemless state archival, recovery, and
transitions. I suppose that may be more of an issue for the
packager than the software developer. I predict that the packages
that seemlessly update state across versions will be the only ones
that exist in the future.
Yeah, too bad there aren't many of those in the server world yet. If you think there are, you haven't tried upgrading Microsoft's large server applications (e.g. Exchange) much.
I guess administrators can make themselves feel important and smart
by spending days messing with an update that should really only take
a couple of hours, or maybe not even that long.
No. We make ourselves feel important and smart by doing due dillagence first, following best practices, and accomplishing the upgrade in a couple of hours instead of spending days doing it.
Come on folks. If you want "seemless" (sic) support, don't use pre-lease software. Simple as that. Most pre-release software will have major changes and backwards compatability breaks (not to mention bugs and such). That is just a fact of life in development.
I'm not trying to knock Timo or dovecot. They are both great. I'm not even trying to knock those who use or depend on pre-release software (I do, with clamav for example). But those who don't know what they are doing should stay clear.
-- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin
Go Longhorns!
On Mon, 2006-05-08 at 19:41, Fred Harris wrote:
LOL, there are only about a billion web pages that are "2 clicks" from the front page of any site. This is why people still stay in the MS heard. Any number of problems like this would cost most companies thousands of dollars to resolve. It's much cheaper just to pay a company like MS who take upgrade transitions seriously.
When did they start doing that? Last time I checked almost any server upgrade required you to convert your whole infrastructure if you aren't using active directory.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
participants (14)
-
Brad Bateman
-
Chris Wakelin
-
Dillon
-
Dominic Marks
-
Eric Rostetter
-
Fred Harris
-
John Peacock
-
Joshua Goodall
-
Les Mikesell
-
Mark E. Mallett
-
Odhiambo WASHINGTON
-
Odhiambo WASHINGTON
-
Richard Laager
-
Timo Sirainen