[Dovecot] Dovecot v0.99.13-3 upgrade to 1.0.15-2 ??
I've read some of the mailing lists looking for information on this. Thus far, about all I've found is there was a complete rewrite of Dovecot some time back.
I'm wondering now is it even possible to use the same mbox's from 0.99.13-3 with version 1.0.15-2? Is there a procedure documented somewhere?
Any pointers would be much appreciated.
Thanks, Mike
Let the machine do the dirty work. - Elements of Programming Style 15:50:02 up 1 day, 1:13, 2 users, load average: 0.52, 0.45, 0.36
Linux Registered User #241685 http://counter.li.org
On 30.9.2010, at 22.17, cajun wrote:
I'm wondering now is it even possible to use the same mbox's from 0.99.13-3 with version 1.0.15-2?
Yes. The old index files won't be used, but mbox format hasn't changed (much). You might have to re-download all mails in your client though.
Is there a procedure documented somewhere?
http://wiki.dovecot.org/Upgrading/1.0 lists everything important.
Thanks Timo, that's exactly what I needed to know.
On 09/30/2010 04:23 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 30.9.2010, at 22.17, cajun wrote:
I'm wondering now is it even possible to use the same mbox's from 0.99.13-3 with version 1.0.15-2?
Yes. The old index files won't be used, but mbox format hasn't changed (much). You might have to re-download all mails in your client though.
Is there a procedure documented somewhere?
http://wiki.dovecot.org/Upgrading/1.0 lists everything important.
--
An elephant is a mouse with an operating system. 17:40:01 up 1 day, 3:03, 3 users, load average: 0.17, 0.20, 0.22
Linux Registered User #241685 http://counter.li.org
On 2010-09-30 5:17 PM, cajun wrote:
I'm wondering now is it even possible to use the same mbox's from 0.99.13-3 with version 1.0.15-2?
Why move from the great-great-granddaddy version to the granddaddy version?
Do yourself a favor and install the latest stable (currently 2.0.4)...
All modern distros have repositories you can install it from.
--
Best regards,
Charles
Charles Marcus put forth on 10/1/2010 6:00 AM:
On 2010-09-30 5:17 PM, cajun wrote:
I'm wondering now is it even possible to use the same mbox's from 0.99.13-3 with version 1.0.15-2?
Why move from the great-great-granddaddy version to the granddaddy version?
Do yourself a favor and install the latest stable (currently 2.0.4)...
All modern distros have repositories you can install it from.
I guess Debian doesn't count as a "modern" distro then. ;) Lenny has 1.2.13 available via backports. Squeeze is frozen, and will apparently ship with 1.2.13, whenever Squeeze ships...
That's actually ok by me, as I'm still running 1.2.11, which meets all my needs. And IIRC from reading the release notes, none of the bug fixes in later 1.2.x releases apply to me, or I'd already have upgraded to 1.2.13.
-- Stan
On 2010-10-01 7:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I guess Debian doesn't count as a "modern" distro then. ;) Lenny has 1.2.13 available via backports. Squeeze is frozen, and will apparently ship with 1.2.13, whenever Squeeze ships...
Yeah... I understand the argument, but this is why I've never seriously considered Debian for myself...
And although I did specify 2.0.4 as being 'the latest stable', I really only meant don't install 1.0.x and should have said so... I'd agree in many cases the latest 1.2 would be best...
--
Best regards,
Charles
Charles Marcus put forth on 10/1/2010 9:44 AM:
On 2010-10-01 7:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I guess Debian doesn't count as a "modern" distro then. ;) Lenny has 1.2.13 available via backports. Squeeze is frozen, and will apparently ship with 1.2.13, whenever Squeeze ships...
Yeah... I understand the argument, but this is why I've never seriously considered Debian for myself...
Due to the age of some/many packages in Debian Stable? Or because new packages aren't introduced in between major releases, except for those released via backports? Or both? One can always install new packages from source. I've done it a few times on Debian simply because they didn't have the package at all. I've also installed RPMs on Debian for the same reason--IOzone comes to mind.
I'd prefer using a Debian package in all cases, but sometimes your distro just doesn't have what you want. Debian is not unique in this regard, even though Debian Stable, AMD64, has 17,914 packages. I'm guessing that compares favorably to any Linux distro. Even with that many packages, on occasion, you're going to want one that isn't in that 17,914.
And although I did specify 2.0.4 as being 'the latest stable', I really only meant don't install 1.0.x and should have said so... I'd agree in many cases the latest 1.2 would be best...
From where I sit, 2.x doesn't seem all that stable yet, as others have stated. No offense intended Timo! :)
-- Stan
On 2010-10-01 12:15 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Charles Marcus put forth on 10/1/2010 9:44 AM:
On 2010-10-01 7:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I guess Debian doesn't count as a "modern" distro then. ;) Lenny has 1.2.13 available via backports. Squeeze is frozen, and will apparently ship with 1.2.13, whenever Squeeze ships...
Yeah... I understand the argument, but this is why I've never seriously considered Debian for myself...
Due to the age of some/many packages in Debian Stable? Or because new packages aren't introduced in between major releases, except for those released via backports? Or both?
Both...
One can always install new packages from source. I've done it a few times on Debian simply because they didn't have the package at all. I've also installed RPMs on Debian for the same reason--IOzone comes to mind.
I know, but I prefer to stick with the package manager if at all possible for many reasons... I don't go in for distro wars either, I prefer gentoo, but to each his/her own.
--
Best regards,
Charles
Charles Marcus put forth on 10/1/2010 2:46 PM:
On 2010-10-01 12:15 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Charles Marcus put forth on 10/1/2010 9:44 AM:
On 2010-10-01 7:26 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I guess Debian doesn't count as a "modern" distro then. ;) Lenny has 1.2.13 available via backports. Squeeze is frozen, and will apparently ship with 1.2.13, whenever Squeeze ships...
Yeah... I understand the argument, but this is why I've never seriously considered Debian for myself...
Due to the age of some/many packages in Debian Stable? Or because new packages aren't introduced in between major releases, except for those released via backports? Or both?
Both...
Yeah, Stable suffers WRT newer/ish packages. A lot of Debian OPs run Testing in production instead, because it has much newer packages in most cases. I'm soo glad they backported Dovecot 1.2.x to Lenny, otherwise I'd still be running 1.0.15, or installing from source.
One can always install new packages from source. I've done it a few times on Debian simply because they didn't have the package at all. I've also installed RPMs on Debian for the same reason--IOzone comes to mind.
I know, but I prefer to stick with the package manager if at all possible for many reasons... I don't go in for distro wars either, I prefer gentoo, but to each his/her own.
I'm exactly the same way. It's gotta be something I can't live without, or darn near that level, before I install from source. Installing RPMs is usually less painful than source due to alien. I've only used it a couple of times and it worked flawlessly.
I've heard and read many good things about Gentoo over the years. For a number of reasons I never tried it out though. Maybe some day...
-- Stan
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 11:15 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
regard, even though Debian Stable, AMD64, has 17,914 packages. I'm guessing that compares favorably to any Linux distro. Even with that many packages, on occasion, you're going to want one that isn't in that 17,914.
Yeah, but look what debian do, they break simple packages up into 4, 5 or 6 minor ones, so that 17K in reality, is nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE near the real package numbers available, it is considerably far less. I know there policy behind it, but that was written 10 years ago where disks were way smaller and far more costly, they are soooooo cheap these days, why bother.
For eg, if I ever wanted to use a package version of bind, why do I have several breakups of it, why not one package, so they can tout "we have more packages then any other distro", darn right tehy do when they do things like this.
BTW, nice to see you didnt set my troll scores off again :)
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 07:00:22 -0400 Charles Marcus <CMarcus@Media-Brokers.com> articulated:
On 2010-09-30 5:17 PM, cajun wrote:
I'm wondering now is it even possible to use the same mbox's from 0.99.13-3 with version 1.0.15-2?
Why move from the great-great-granddaddy version to the granddaddy version?
Do yourself a favor and install the latest stable (currently 2.0.4)...
All modern distros have repositories you can install it from.
There has been chatter on the FreeBSD forum regarding introducing the new 2.x release into the ports system. Personally, I have advised against it unless the port is clearly marked as "USE AT OWN RISK". Timo appears to be introducing patches for the 2.x version on a nearly daily basis. Until this version stabilizes and can go at least a few weeks without something major breaking, I would recommend against using it on a production server. Obviously, what you use on your home machine is your own business.
FreeBSD is usually in the forefront when it comes to introducing new versions of applications into its ports system; usually eons ahead of most other vendors so I find this delay in releasing the 2.x version something positive. Otherwise the overworked port maintainer here would be working overtime attempting to keep up with the releases, patches and subsequent testing required before releasing the product into the wild.
Just my 2¢.
-- Jerry ✌ Dovecot.user@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
I'm wondering now is it even possible to use the same mbox's from 0.99.13-3 with version 1.0.15-2? Why move from the great-great-granddaddy version to the granddaddy version?
Do yourself a favor and install the latest stable (currently 2.0.4)...
All modern distros have repositories you can install it from. There has been chatter on the FreeBSD forum regarding introducing the new 2.x release into the ports system. Personally, I have advised against it unless the port is clearly marked as "USE AT OWN RISK". Timo appears to be introducing patches for the 2.x version on a nearly daily basis. Until this version stabilizes and can go at least a few weeks without something major breaking, I would recommend against using it on a production server. Obviously, what you use on your home machine is your own business.
All true, but there is a current 1.2.14 out there which should probably be preferred ove a two-and-a-half year old 1.0.15. Jakob
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:20:27 +0200 Jakob Curdes <jc@info-systems.de> articulated:
I'm wondering now is it even possible to use the same mbox's from 0.99.13-3 with version 1.0.15-2? Why move from the great-great-granddaddy version to the granddaddy version?
Do yourself a favor and install the latest stable (currently 2.0.4)...
All modern distros have repositories you can install it from. There has been chatter on the FreeBSD forum regarding introducing the new 2.x release into the ports system. Personally, I have advised against it unless the port is clearly marked as "USE AT OWN RISK". Timo appears to be introducing patches for the 2.x version on a nearly daily basis. Until this version stabilizes and can go at least a few weeks without something major breaking, I would recommend against using it on a production server. Obviously, what you use on your home machine is your own business.
All true, but there is a current 1.2.14 out there which should probably be preferred ove a two-and-a-half year old 1.0.15.
My post was referencing moving to the 2.x version, not an update to the latest 1.x version.
-- Jerry ✌ Dovecot.user@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
Bumper sticker: All the parts falling off this car are of the very finest British manufacture.
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 14:20 +0200, Jakob Curdes wrote:
All true, but there is a current 1.2.14 out there which should probably be preferred ove a two-and-a-half year old 1.0.15. Jakob
Indeed, but some people who use certain distros are scared shitless of using source packages and will insist on using a several yo version because thats all <insert distro X or Y here> provides, the 1.2 branch is rock solid stable and time proven, if distro X/Y only oifferes 1.0.x, well, that says a lot about distro X/Y, we all know who X 'n Y are, without mentioning names :)
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:37:25 +1000 Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> articulated:
Indeed, but some people who use certain distros are scared shitless of using source packages and will insist on using a several yo version because thats all <insert distro X or Y here> provides, the 1.2 branch is rock solid stable and time proven, if distro X/Y only oifferes 1.0.x, well, that says a lot about distro X/Y, we all know who X 'n Y are, without mentioning names :)
Seriously, the weekend is upon use. Nothing like a good flame war over whose OS is superior.
-- Jerry ✌ Dovecot.user@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
Jerry put forth on 10/1/2010 7:59 AM:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:37:25 +1000 Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> articulated:
Indeed, but some people who use certain distros are scared shitless of using source packages and will insist on using a several yo version because thats all <insert distro X or Y here> provides, the 1.2 branch is rock solid stable and time proven, if distro X/Y only oifferes 1.0.x, well, that says a lot about distro X/Y, we all know who X 'n Y are, without mentioning names :)
Seriously, the weekend is upon use. Nothing like a good flame war over whose OS is superior.
I've never understood the OS flame war mentality. Each OS has its strengths and its weaknesses. You pick your OS poison based on the strengths you desire, and live with the warts. Every OS has warts, some more than others, but they all have 'em.
-- Stan
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 08:59 -0400, Jerry wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:37:25 +1000 Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> articulated:
Indeed, but some people who use certain distros are scared shitless of using source packages and will insist on using a several yo version because thats all <insert distro X or Y here> provides, the 1.2 branch is rock solid stable and time proven, if distro X/Y only oifferes 1.0.x, well, that says a lot about distro X/Y, we all know who X 'n Y are, without mentioning names :)
Seriously, the weekend is upon use. Nothing like a good flame war over whose OS is superior.
ruddy oath .. Slackware all the way :P
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:53 -0400, Jerry wrote:
There has been chatter on the FreeBSD forum regarding introducing the new 2.x release into the ports system. Personally, I have advised against it unless the port is clearly marked as "USE AT OWN RISK". Timo appears to be introducing patches for the 2.x version on a nearly daily basis. Until this version stabilizes and can go at least a few weeks without something major breaking, I would recommend against using it on a production server.
Agreed, with any distro, IMO, 2.x is really still beta stage, to be expected since its in its infancy, and there was only limited people testing it. The more that use it, more bugs likely found given the myriad of different configurations, personally, when it does settle down, I'd like to see a version bump to 2.1
FreeBSD is usually in the forefront when it comes to introducing new versions of applications into its ports system; usually eons ahead of
really? wow how things must have changed in recent years, they used to be so, well, debian like, but not quite as bad :)
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 22:32:39 +1000 Noel Butler <noel.butler@ausics.net> articulated:
really? wow how things must have changed in recent years, they used to be so, well, debian like, but not quite as bad :)
Touché. The FreeBSD developers do have a bug up their ass regarding GPL licenses which has effectively slowed down the introduction of some new (better) software into the base system. This has reportedly led to sporadic problems with some newer applications being released into the FreeBSD ports system.
All things considered though, they usually maintain software that is relatively up-to-date; i.e., Postfix for example. The developers version is always available and current in the ports system. Most other major applications follow that general protocol. New releases of Dovecot are always available, usually only a few days after being released. This 2.x version is not the norm though. It is, as you so clearly stated, a BETA version. I would like to see FreeBSED release it clearly marked as a BETA or DEVELOPERS version, aka "USE AT ON RISK". Doing so would allow it to receive more extensive testing while warning potential users of the risks involved.
I would comment on Debian; however, I don't want to start a flame war.
-- Jerry ✌ Dovecot.user@seibercom.net
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
On 30/09/2010 22:17, cajun wrote:
I've read some of the mailing lists looking for information on this. Thus far, about all I've found is there was a complete rewrite of Dovecot some time back.
I'm wondering now is it even possible to use the same mbox's from 0.99.13-3 with version 1.0.15-2? Is there a procedure documented somewhere?
Any pointers would be much appreciated.
If you have picked up the issue of upgrading Dovecot, I would
suggest that you consider going up to version 2.0.4, and
recommend going for at least version 1.2.x.
Many consider Dovecot versions older than 1.2.x to be somewhat ancient and as such you may find it difficult to get any help (or at least any help which doesn't begin with "First upgrade to version 1.2.x or better") when using version 1.1.x or older.
Bill
participants (8)
-
cajun
-
Charles Marcus
-
Jakob Curdes
-
Jerry
-
Noel Butler
-
Stan Hoeppner
-
Timo Sirainen
-
William Blunn