[Dovecot] Migrate 0.99 MBox into 1.0rc15-2
Hello,
I have old MBOX-trees from a dovecot-0.99-installation. I would like to integrate them into dovecot 1.0.0rc15 with Maildir.
Sadly the old dovecot is no lonfger running, otherwise imapsync could be used.
Does anybody can give some hints how to start?
TIA
StephanOn Sat, 2007-08-25 at 11:12 +0200, Stephan Holl wrote:
Hello,
I have old MBOX-trees from a dovecot-0.99-installation. I would like to integrate them into dovecot 1.0.0rc15 with Maildir.
Sadly the old dovecot is no lonfger running, otherwise imapsync could be used.
Does anybody can give some hints how to start?
http://wiki.dovecot.org/Migration http://wiki.dovecot.org/Migration/MailFormat
I have old MBOX-trees from a dovecot-0.99-installation. I would like to integrate them into dovecot 1.0.0rc15 with Maildir.
http://wiki.dovecot.org/Migration http://wiki.dovecot.org/Migration/MailFormat
Also - why rc15? Thats really old now. If your're doing a migration, why not migrate to the newest version?
--
Best regards,
Charles
--On Saturday, August 25, 2007 7:07 PM -0400 Charles Marcus CMarcus@Media-Brokers.com wrote:
Also - why rc15? Thats really old now. If your're doing a migration, why not migrate to the newest version?
Perhaps the latest his distro offers?
Perhaps we need a wiki page showing alternate repos that offer a more up-to-date Dovecot for the more conservative distros (like RHEL and CentoOS).
On Aug 26, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
Also - why rc15? Thats really old now. If your're doing a
migration, why not migrate to the newest version?Perhaps the latest his distro offers?
Perhaps we need a wiki page showing alternate repos that offer a
more up-to-date Dovecot for the more conservative distros (like
RHEL and CentoOS).
Perhaps what we really need is a wiki page to allay the fears of
the people who pathetically find such difficulty in "./
configure;make;make install".
-Dave-- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL Farewell Ophelia, 9/22/1991 - 7/25/2007
--On Sunday, August 26, 2007 2:45 PM -0400 Dave McGuire mcguire@neurotica.com wrote:
Perhaps what we really need is a wiki page to allay the fears of the people who pathetically find such difficulty in "./ configure;make;make install".
That's fine if you have only a single system and don't need to track installed files through a packaging system.
At the very least, one should wrap that idiom in the distro's packaging scheme, such as "rpmbuild --rebuild dovecot-xxxx.src.rpm ; su ; rpm -Uvh dovecot-xxxx.i386.rpm".
On Aug 26, 2007, at 4:00 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote:
Perhaps what we really need is a wiki page to allay the fears
of the people who pathetically find such difficulty in "./
configure;make;make install".That's fine if you have only a single system and don't need to
track installed files through a packaging system.
I currently maintain about thirty systems of three different
processor architectures and four different OSs (*different OSs*, not
"different Linux 'distros'"). It isn't a problem (or even a
bottleneck) in that environment. Several good centralized software
management schemes have been around for a very, very long time. I
don't use *any* "package management" systems...they are more trouble
than they're worth. The very existence of this thread is an example. ;)
At the very least, one should wrap that idiom in the distro's
packaging scheme, such as "rpmbuild --rebuild dovecot- xxxx.src.rpm ; su ; rpm -Uvh dovecot-xxxx.i386.rpm".
Hmm, that does sound like a good idea.
-Dave-- Dave McGuire Port Charlotte, FL Farewell Ophelia, 9/22/1991 - 7/25/2007
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Aug 26, 2007, at 4:00 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote: Several good centralized software management schemes have been around for a very, very long time. I don't use *any* "package management" systems...they are more trouble than they're worth. The very existence of this thread is an example. ;)
Meh... That all depends on your vendor. Even if they include an older version, the better vendors keep everything secure and as bug free as possible. Package managers allow busy people to keep a system up to date with little effort. I would think security fixes are more important than new features any day.
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain privileged information or confidential information or both. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it and notify the sender.
Hello,
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:05:41 +1000 Tim Bates tin@new-life.org.au wrote:
Dave McGuire wrote:
On Aug 26, 2007, at 4:00 PM, Kenneth Porter wrote: Several good centralized software management schemes have been around for a very, very long time. I don't use *any* "package management" systems...they are more trouble than they're worth. The very existence of this thread is an example. ;)
Meh... That all depends on your vendor. Even if they include an older version, the better vendors keep everything secure and as bug free as possible. Package managers allow busy people to keep a system up to date with little effort. I would think security fixes are more important than new features any day.
well, rc15 is offered thru debian stable. It runs w/o no errors so there is no need to update (yet). But yes, if someone knows a repo with a recent dovecot-package for debian stable.
Best
Stephan-- Stephan Holl
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:34:52 +0200, Stephan Holl stephan@holl-land.de wrote:
well, rc15 is offered thru debian stable. It runs w/o no errors so there is no need to update (yet). But yes, if someone knows a repo with a recent dovecot-package for debian stable.
backports.org has dovecot 1.0.0 for Debian etch.
Greetings
Robert Sander
participants (7)
-
Charles Marcus
-
Dave McGuire
-
Kenneth Porter
-
Robert Sander
-
Stephan Holl
-
Tim Bates
-
Timo Sirainen