On 29/03/2007 03:41, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting John Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 28/03/2007 19:39, Eric Rostetter wrote:
People running Fedora Core run 0.99, and they do not know it isn't
production
(since it comes with FC, which they don't know isn't production).
They ought to; FC in its entirety is devel for RHEL, and this is
prominently pointed out all over the F web sites.
Yes, exactly. But they still don't know, or just don't get it.
And I'm talking large scale here, not a few people.
Again, their problem, not ours, as Charles Marcus seems (to me) to have
pointed out.
In a sense, it is; it's certainly not Dovecot's. If <distro> chooses to
include version <a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k>, consumers of <distro> ought to
take up any problems with <distro> before they come here.
Yeah, but how likely is that (especially if they use a RHEL clone instead
of the real RHEL)?
People like me? Again, if you use a RHEL clone like CentOS, you ought to
have read the support details (i.e. this is a free rebuild, you may rely
on RH but don't complain to them or us). If you use ATrpms packages, you
ought to have read the support details (i.e. testing latest software,
works for Axel, don't complain to him).
If CentOS users come here, they should be ready to be told "don't use
that, try the latest, or wait for RHEL to fix theirs and CentOS to follow".
Having said all this, what it probably boils down to is that once we've
a release, we (this list) can support 1.0 while we try to contribute to
1.1 (or whatever), but before we've a release it's definitely the
responsibility of packagers who decide to make a release to support
their packages.
Once dovecot's reached 1.0, a sane version numbering system will help
put all this to rest.
Problem is, sanity is subjective...
Oh yes, I agree, especially mine :-)
Cheers,
John.
