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/
