Re: More removal suggestions
Riku Voipio wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 09:37:15PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Igor Genibel wrote:
>> > Could you explain your motivation about dovecot ?
>> > The upstream seems to be active and aware
>> > ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=225048 )
>> > and the maintainer too ...
>> > The package is up to date (same as the upstream).
>
>> I don't think it's reasonable to release the current version, and the bug
>> has sat at 'grave' since February 11 (a full month) with no visible
>> progress.
>
>> If you think it's just fine to release sarge containing dovecot in this
>> data-lossy condition, well, then it shouldn't be removed from sarge.
>> However, it sounds like a bad idea to me.
>
> I had few beers with dovecots author las night, and He said that
> he doesn't consider that a RC bug ("mboxes are inheritedly unsafe").
If the bug is really considered non-RC, then the bug should be downgraded.
Perhaps if you're uncomfortable doing that, someone could ask on
debian-devel whether they agree that 'mboxes are inherently unsafe'? If
nobody agrees, then the package should presumably be removed from sarge.
One or the other, you know?
> Dovecot is going under a major rewrite, so while the next version will
> probably fix this, it will be overall more untested.
Thanks for your time & all.
--
Make sure your vote will count.
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/
Reply to: