Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-06-15 6:57 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Too bad the Debian Dovecot maintainer isn't 'The Flash' in getting
binaries uploaded. For i386 anyway. He had the AMD64 1.2.11 binary
uploaded to backports within a week IIRC. Took something like 2 weeks
IIRC before he got the i386 binary uploaded. If it weren't for the
fact that one of the bugs fixed was 'critical' for me (I actually
contributed to discovery), I'd probably not have cared. Some
debian-user list folks say I should simply be grateful we have
current Dovecot revs in backports period. I say if we didn't have
stuff in backports nobody would use Debian, as all the packages would
be 2 years out of date the moment the next stable is released...
This is precise reason I have never been inclined to try Debian other
than once over 5 years ago (and why I like gentoo so much)...
I do understand the argument, and it's apparently worked well for them,
but imo the 'hard' line should be drawn more against the *system*
(compiler, kernel, system tools, etc), and not so much the software that
rides on top.
I'm still running multiple gentoo servers that were originally installed
7 years ago, and are currently running mostly up to date versions of
everything. I keep all of the *system* packages at 'stable', and
applications at 'unstable', and it has worked flawlessly, with only a
few minor bumps easily solved using google and/or the user forums. Yeah,
7 years is a long time hardware wise, but if it still works well and
handles the load well, it fits my criteria of 'if it ain't broke don't
fix it'.
Charles, thanks for the making the distinction between the OS (*system*)
and applications. I've believed for years that there is a difference
there, and this is one good example of why.
--
-Eric 'shubes'
