Johnny Hughes wrote:
No. But we had that stuff rather regularly with samba - their first line
of support seems to be : "Upgrade your version to the most current one,
then ask again."
That's what I meant.
That is very common with applications. They don't back patch old
versions, and the problem you ask about might be already fixed. Just
look at the dovecot list. People still pop in and ask why 0.99 has
this problem, because that is what their distro came with, but they
are currently at 1.0.5, and have 1.1 in beta. Who has the time to
backport fixes to old versions if you don't get paid for it?
And what's the point even if you do get paid? The problem is really in
distributions that by policy won't do a version level app upgrade even
in instances where it would clearly be better than patching the beta
version they chose to include.
Well ... Even IF the dovecot people backported patches to 0.99 ... RHEL
would probably not bring those patches in anyway, unless it fixed a
problem that they have in the RH bugzilla. That is the whole purpose of
freezing on the enterprise distribution.
Why should dovecot people have anything more to do with a beta version
that they no longer support? It wasn't their choice for that version to
live on (nearly) forever.
They fix security updates and bugs and you run it like it was released
... IT IS THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT.
IF that isn't the distribution type you want ... CentOS is not the
distribution for you :D
So which distribution makes intelligent decisions about how to best
maintain each application package instead of applying a blanket policy
that obviously doesn't fit everything? I do, of course, want stability
in most of the packages - just not where a barely functional beta was
shipped in the first place.
--
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
