Proposed dovecot update changes

Farkas Levente lfarkas at
Sun Jan 16 16:25:36 UTC 2005

Warren Togami wrote:
> John,
> Any objections to my proposed changes?  I can implement all of this and 
> supply patches for your review, or apply it myself to CVS if you wish. I 
> summarize each problem and my proposed solution below.
> 1. Unnecessary dependency on mysql/postgresql
> =============================================
> Prereq: postgresql
> Prereq: mysql
> These lines are wrong.  The package is fine without it, because RPM 
> auto-dep pulls in the client library of mysql and postgresql rather than 
> a larger unnecessary chunk of those databases.  These dependencies are 
> resolved properly by yum and handled automatically.
> Solution: Just remove those lines.
> 2. dovecot.conf should default to fcntl locking
> ===============================================
> Our default dovecot.conf changed from fcntl to dotlock sometime after 
> the release of FC2.  That is one of the reasons why we see this above 
> bug.  This problem must now be attacked on two fronts:
> 1) Our default dovecot.conf must be changed to use fcntl by default
> again.  If someone uses a broken NFS where fcntl doesn't work, then it
> is up them to edit their configuration to use dotlocks.  If users have
> not modified dovecot.conf, then upgrading to the new package will set
> fcntl default.
> 2) For exisiting users who have modified dovecot.conf, it would be
> dangerous to force a change to fcntl during %post.  Then
> "mail_extra_groups = mail" is the correct line to add durin
> 3. FC2 should not link to mysql/postgresql (???)
> ================================================
> FC2 dovecot originally did not link to mysql and postgresql, so arguably 
> we should not add those dependencies in an update.  Unfortunately our 
> current FC2 update is linked in this way, so we would be breaking 
> existing users if they did begin using this functionality in FC2.  I am 
> guessing that the likelihood of this is very low and we should go ahead. 
>  (However we could just as easily leave it as is, then it would only be 
> a minor annoyance rather than a real problem.)
> FC3 dovecot did link to mysql/postgresql libs, so we must not change 
> that or split into sub-packages because then an update would break 
> existing users.
> FC4 we have the option of splitting mysql/postgresql into sub-packages, 
> which is probably the correct thing to do based on the php precedent.
> Thoughts?


   Levente                               "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list