[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Dovecot 1.0


[Following up on an older thread]

On 7/12/2005 3:59 p.m., Willem Riede wrote:
On 12/06/2005 07:21:28 AM, Reuben Farrelly wrote:

On 5/12/2005 1:18 p.m., Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
Willem Riede wrote:

Can we have dovecot 1.0 alpha4 in FC5? Even though the word alpha is
present in the version, it is quite stable, and fixes many problems that
there are in 0.99.14. As a matter of fact, there is no upstream support
for 0.99.x. Any reports are met with 'please upgrade and your problem
will likely be over'.

Yes, please!  I was waiting for Dovecot 1.0 to switch to Dovecot
from courier-imap without anyone noticing the difference.

The feature I'm missing in 0.99 is namespaces.  Without this,
I'd have to reconfigure all the MUAs to change their IMAP
prefix from "INBOX" to "" (empty string).

I would like to add my +1 to this as well. Dovecot-0.99.x is arguably just as bad if not more 'alpha' than the upcoming 1.0 releases both in terms of bugs and of features and it seems most odd to be shipping a package that isn't supported by the upstream developer and community. I would also put the case that 0.99.x was more 'alpha' in it's quality than the current releases that are actually labelled as 'alpha'.

Anyway, there is a bugzilla entry open as an RFE for it:


Perhaps that might be a good place to start adding comments, maybe if enough people ask nicely in there and show support, it might happen from within RH ;-)

I have added the 1.0-alpha4 spec file and the patches I successfully used myself to run dovecot-1.0-alpha4 on fc5t1 to that bugzilla, so I hope somebody makes use of those and upgrades dovecot in devel - please? pretty please? :-)

Re: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=170960

dovecot-1.0-beta1 is now out and there is soon going to be a bounty paid by the author to the first person who finds a remotely exploitable bug (if one such one exists). See http://dovecot.org/security.html. That surely suggests that the author feels that his "beta" code is of reputable quality and surely good enough to replace the current and very outdated "alpha" 0.99 package we have in core that is no longer supported upstream.

Can someone from Redhat perhaps comment a bit more - if there is a reason for why it hasn't been upgraded please tell us, and who is actually now maintaining it? Thanks to Willem Riede who has done the hard work and come up with an updated specfile + patches and posted them in bugzilla, so you'd expect the upgrade to be relatively little work for whoever takes it on.

I'm thinking of a comment in bugzilla from John Dennis where he states "I'm being transitioned to other responsibilities and package ownership of dovecot is transferring at the same time. The new (yet to be determined) package maintainer for dovecot will need to pick up the ball on this issue.".
So far no-one has picked up any ball, so who actually is the new maintainer?

I'm asking because there have been no real responses from Redhat to date as to what's going on, and there are constantly reports of users installing the old FC/RHEL RPM's on the dovecot list and being told to install the newer version because the version shipped in FC/RHEL is too old and not supported........


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]