Re: cyrus --> dovecot
2012.06.21. 18:07 keltezéssel, Camaleón írta:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:29:40 +0200, Móczik Gábor wrote:
I want cyrus-imapd and dovecot-imapd both installed simultaneously until
migrating all the mails from Cyrus and testing the new service.
The problem is, that apt want to remove Cyrus if I install dovecot.
What's the exact output you get from apt?
progzmaster:~# apt-get install dovecot-imapd
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
The following packages were automatically installed and are no longer
required:
cyrus-common-2.2 libgssapi2-heimdal libheimntlm0-heimdal
Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
The following packages will be REMOVED:
cyrus-imapd-2.2
The following NEW packages will be installed:
dovecot-imapd
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 1 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
Need to get 1,123 kB of archives.
After this operation, 786 kB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]? n
Abort.
Is there a technical reason for this restriction?
At a first glance I see none, both packages should be able to coexist in
the same system. A different thing would be that you wanted to use both
services at the same time in the same host using the standard ports...
On different ports, of course...
Is there a way not to automatically remove Cyrus?
I wonder what package/rule is the reason for the "break" or "conflict"
here.
dovecot:
Replaces: dovecot-common, imap-server
Provides: imap-server
cyrus:
Replaces: cyrus21-imapd, cyrus22-imapd
Provides: cyrus21-imapd, cyrus22-imapd, imap-server
Conflicts: cyrus21-imapd, cyrus22-imapd, imap-server
It's not an option to stop IMAP service for hours or so.
I'm curious about the replacement, may I ask why you want to replace
Cyrus for Dovecot?
I don't know which is better, but it worth a try.
I have read that it is better to administer or recover from a failure,
performs better and more standard-compliant.
I don't know until I try. :-)
However, Cyrus seemed stable for years without significant data loss.
Reply to: