Re: INN packages

[md@linux.it (Marco d'Itri)]

On Jan 15, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> wrote:

 >> I did not known you packaged 2.x for potato! Can it run without uniover
 >> and with the old overview?
 >I'm pretty sure you can run 2.2.2 either way.
This is true, but not while using storageapi, which is the only reason
someone would install 2.x.
Did you enable the tagged hash?
Even with it I think the history index has to be rebuilt.

 >> If it does not you are going to piss off a lot of people.
 >I don't think 2.2.2 is going to piss of anyone who matters.  I've actually
 >been taking a lot of grief from users who were annoyed with 1.7.X still being
 >the "current" package in Debian, and I sure don't want to be stuck supporting
How many of them are real admins and how many are lusers who just run a
server on their dialup boxes?
I think it's a really bad idea removing INN 1.x from potato because
there is no easy upgrade path, even if you stick to tradspool.
If you want to put 2.x in potato I think it should be packaged as inn2.

 >it until another release after potato.  And, in fact, the ISC website is very
 >strong in its encouragement to get to 2.2.2 from previous versions, so I think
 >there is a very consistent message out there.
I don't think so. rra stated my same opinion many times in inn-workers
and news.software.nntp.

 >> I think 1.7.1+insync would be a much better choice for potato.
 >Why would you think that?  We've had 1.7.2 for ages, why would we go backwards
 >from that?
Because if you need more speed in the 1.x branch the insync release is
the answer. And if you need more speed 2.2 won't work, I don't think
INN 2.x can be useful for a non-toy server until 2.3 is released with
the new history backends and the new overview code.
Other than "lusers are whining", which are your arguments to ship 2.2
with potato?

I'm sorry to start discussing that so shortly before the release, but I
did not notice Miquel passed you the package (some months ago he wrote
me he would not package 2.x until it became stable).

-- 
ciao,
Marco