[CentOS] Re: Site about qmail (with CentOS as SO)

Wed Oct 24 20:59:53 UTC 2007
Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com>

on 10/24/2007 12:34 PM Johnny Hughes spake the following:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Scott Silva 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.
> 
> 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
> 
> (You being users in general and not anyone in particular)
> 
And if you really need a particular package newer, you just have to bite the 
bullet and either manage it yourself, or use a third party trusted repo that 
has what you want. Even Centos made the redhat application stack available "if 
you want it".

-- 
MailScanner is like deodorant...
You hope everybody uses it, and
you notice quickly if they don't!!!!