On Thu, 27 Jul 2006, Ross Boylan wrote:
> If the file is at best duplicative of the info in imapd.conf and at
> worst contradictory, maybe it should be deleted? I had the impression
It could be deleted, yes. But then tracking berkeley db version would now
need to be done using other methods (ldd
On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 15:21 +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Ross Boylan wrote on 26/07/2006 05:50:
> > By the way, I notice my entire active-types file is now just the line
> > DBENGINE BerkeleyDB4.2
> >
> > Is that OK?
> >
> > Even if it's OK, it's kind of an unfortunate loss of information: it
> >
Ross Boylan wrote on 26/07/2006 05:50:
> By the way, I notice my entire active-types file is now just the line
> DBENGINE BerkeleyDB4.2
>
> Is that OK?
>
> Even if it's OK, it's kind of an unfortunate loss of information: it
> doesn't say what the database types are for the individual components.
Ross Boylan wrote:
> By the way, I notice my entire active-types file is now just the line
> DBENGINE BerkeleyDB4.2
>
> Is that OK?
>
> Even if it's OK, it's kind of an unfortunate loss of information: it
> doesn't say what the database types are for the individual components.
> This information wa
By the way, I notice my entire active-types file is now just the line
DBENGINE BerkeleyDB4.2
Is that OK?
Even if it's OK, it's kind of an unfortunate loss of information: it
doesn't say what the database types are for the individual components.
This information was significant in the upgrade from
OK, I just completed an upgrade from 2.1 to 2.2. I think it worked.
In brief:
*disabled some local cron jobs that do mail backup
*disabled mail delivery to lmtp (just to be safe--probably unnecessary.
For the record, I used a redirect router with
data = :defer: in exim4)
*apt-get install for the
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 22:20 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
.
> I may have run the update command in the install, but I think they were
> the same and it worked fine. Running that command won't hurt if it's
> pointless. I found the upgrade painless, but it was a while ago, and my
> setup is v
Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 22:20 -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> .
>
>> I may have run the update command in the install, but I think they were
>> the same and it worked fine. Running that command won't hurt if it's
>> pointless. I found the upgrade painless, but it was a
Sorry, forgot to fill in the version info.
The key part is cyrus 2.1 uses libdb3 (>= 3.2.9-23),
while 2.2 uses libdb4.2.
$ dpkg -s cyrus21-imapd
Package: cyrus21-imapd
Status: install ok installed
Priority: extra
Section: mail
Installed-Size: 1588
Maintainer: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL
Ross Boylan wrote on 17/06/2006 00:46:
> 3) sieve scripts in user home directories can be left as is.
As I just checked the code (and as mentioned in my other mail), this is
not true. Sieve scripts in use home dirs need to be byte-compiled, too.
It's just that masssievec doesn't support converting
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote on 16/06/2006 23:43:
>>If 2.1 and 2.2 on Debian use different bdb formats wouldn't that require
>>conversion of all bdb databases on upgrade? Since the 2 reported
>
> Yes.
Actually, now I saw the list of affected databases: I just removed the
duplicate_db and th
Ross Boylan wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 18:43 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Ross Boylan wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> Are you referring to any files other than .sieve?
>>> If .sieve in home directories is not compiled there is a performance
>>> penalty, and p
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 18:43 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > Are you referring to any files other than .sieve?
> > If .sieve in home directories is not compiled there is a performance
> > penalty, and possibly a late discovery of syntax errors
On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 23:41 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > Does this mean that Debian departed from upstream for 2.1? Because the
>
> Debian 2.1 is far closer to upstream 2.2 than you would believe. Look at
> the size of the Debian diff fo
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006, Ross Boylan wrote:
> switched all of them, or some of them (remarks below seem to imply the
> latter)?
$ cat /usr/lib/cyrus/cyrus-db-types.active
DBENGINE BerkeleyDB3.2
DUPLICATE db3_nosync
MBOX skiplist
SEEN skiplist
SUBS flat
TLS db3_nosync
> It sounds as if it could auto-d
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Ross Boylan wrote:
> Does this mean that Debian departed from upstream for 2.1? Because the
Debian 2.1 is far closer to upstream 2.2 than you would believe. Look at
the size of the Debian diff for 2.1 if you doubt it. It is the most
advanced Cyrus 2.1 on earth :-p So, bas
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 15:02 +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Ross Boylan wrote on 13/06/2006 19:49:
> > On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 12:32 +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> >
> >>Well, I can at least give a quick answer on this:
> >>Neither 2.1 nor 2.2 differ that much from upstream that the upgrade path
> >>is a
Ross Boylan wrote on 13/06/2006 19:49:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 12:32 +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
>
>>Well, I can at least give a quick answer on this:
>>Neither 2.1 nor 2.2 differ that much from upstream that the upgrade path
>>is affected. Actually, IIRC, the upgrade from 2.1 to 2.2 is usually jus
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 12:32 +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Ross Boylan wrote on 13/06/2006 06:29:
> > On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:39:31PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> > One possibility is that there's actually some upgrade code that needs
> > to be written or changed to deal with this. Given t
Sven Mueller wrote:
> Ross Boylan wrote on 13/06/2006 06:29:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:39:31PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
>> One possibility is that there's actually some upgrade code that needs
>> to be written or changed to deal with this. Given the current Debian
>> notes about
Ross Boylan wrote on 13/06/2006 06:29:
> On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:39:31PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> One possibility is that there's actually some upgrade code that needs
> to be written or changed to deal with this. Given the current Debian
> notes about disliking automated scripts (or
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 10:39:31PM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote:
> Hi Ross.
> I just wanted to let you know that we're not ignoring you. We usually
> have a very quick turn around time on technical bugs, but unfortunately
> this is a documentation bug, and you know how those things go. Rest
> a
Hi Ross.
I just wanted to let you know that we're not ignoring you. We usually
have a very quick turn around time on technical bugs, but unfortunately
this is a documentation bug, and you know how those things go. Rest
assured, we do know your issues need to be solved.
Sven and I have talked about
The more I look the less I know :(
RELEVANT PARTS
On looking more closely at Upgrade.Debian, I realize I don't know what
"The information how to upgrade your database files is contained in the
upgrade information from cyrus v1.6 below." Assuming the reference is
actually to cyrus 1.5 (bug 368675)
24 matches
Mail list logo
