On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 08:20:55PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> 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?
There are more complicated locking requirements that make mbox
inherently more difficult to code for. To my knowledge, this does not
mean mbox is inherently unsafe. And even if it did, I would personally
consider it RC for *any* package to provide mbox support, rather than
thinking it ok to provide inherently broken mailbox handling.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature