Re: INN packages
In article <[🔎] 20000116000556.A2860@wonderland.linux.it> you wrote:
> 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.
I think your attitude towards users of the Debian INN package (calling some
of them "lusers", and copping such a big attitude towards what you perceive
as "toy servers") really stinks. It strongly tempted me to just ignore your
message, Marco. I would like to think we can have a reasonable technical
discussion without needing to inject so much attitude?
> 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).
I think you are confusing "stable" with something else. I believe that
INN 2.2.2 is stable. The ISC web pages certainly treat it as the current
stable release, and the majority of discussion in the various forums where
INN gets talked about suggest to me that many sites are running 2.X versions
quite successfully. There are certainly some substantial performance
improvements coming in 2.3 for those who need them... but I really do not
think that 2.2.2 as I have packaged it is a worse choice than 1.7.2 for the
typical user of the Debian INN package.
While it is completely true that the upgrade from 1.X to 2.X is going to
require manual reconfiguration, my 2.2.2 inn package makes this *very* clear
in the preinst and gives the user the opportunity to bail out when it detects
an upgrade from 1.7.2 or before. While there are several open issues with
my 2.2.2 packages, none are as serious as the open issues in the 1.7.2
packages were... and I expect to have them resolved before potato releases.
Bdale
Reply to: