Dovecot 1.0

Reuben Farrelly reuben-fedora-devel at
Mon Jan 16 21:35:10 UTC 2006


[Following up on an older thread]

On 7/12/2005 3:59 p.m., Willem Riede wrote:
> On 12/06/2005 07:21:28 AM, Reuben Farrelly wrote:
>> On 5/12/2005 1:18 p.m., Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
>>> Willem Riede wrote:
>>>> Can we have dovecot 1.0 alpha4 in FC5? Even though the word alpha is
>>>> present in the version, it is quite stable, and fixes many problems 
>>>> that
>>>> there are in 0.99.14. As a matter of fact, there is no upstream support
>>>> for 0.99.x. Any reports are met with 'please upgrade and your problem
>>>> will likely be over'.
>>> Yes, please!  I was waiting for Dovecot 1.0 to switch to Dovecot
>>> from courier-imap without anyone noticing the difference.
>>> The feature I'm missing in 0.99 is namespaces.  Without this,
>>> I'd have to reconfigure all the MUAs to change their IMAP
>>> prefix from "INBOX" to "" (empty string).
>> I would like to add my +1 to this as well.  Dovecot-0.99.x is arguably 
>> just as bad if not more 'alpha' than the upcoming 1.0 releases both in 
>> terms of bugs and of features and it seems most odd to be shipping a 
>> package that isn't supported by the upstream developer and community.  
>> I would also put the case that 0.99.x was more 'alpha' in it's quality 
>> than the current releases that are actually labelled as 'alpha'.
>> Anyway, there is a bugzilla entry open as an RFE for it:
>> Perhaps that might be a good place to start adding comments, maybe if 
>> enough people ask nicely in there and show support, it might happen 
>> from within RH ;-)
> I have added the 1.0-alpha4 spec file and the patches I successfully 
> used myself to run dovecot-1.0-alpha4 on fc5t1 to that bugzilla, so I 
> hope somebody makes use of those and upgrades  dovecot in devel - 
> please? pretty please? :-)


dovecot-1.0-beta1 is now out and there is soon going to be a bounty paid by the 
author to the first person who finds a remotely exploitable bug (if one such one 
exists).  See  That surely suggests that the 
author feels that his "beta" code is of reputable quality and surely good enough 
to replace the current and very outdated "alpha" 0.99 package we have in core 
that is no longer supported upstream.

Can someone from Redhat perhaps comment a bit more - if there is a reason for 
why it hasn't been upgraded please tell us, and who is actually now maintaining 
it?  Thanks to Willem Riede who has done the hard work and come up with an 
updated specfile + patches and posted them in bugzilla, so you'd expect the 
upgrade to be relatively little work for whoever takes it on.

I'm thinking of a comment in bugzilla from John Dennis where he states "I'm 
being transitioned to other responsibilities and package ownership of dovecot is 
transferring at the same time. The new (yet to be determined) package maintainer 
for dovecot will need to pick up the ball on this issue.".
So far no-one has picked up any ball, so who actually is the new maintainer?

I'm asking because there have been no real responses from Redhat to date as to 
what's going on, and there are constantly reports of users installing the old 
FC/RHEL RPM's on the dovecot list and being told to install the newer version 
because the version shipped in FC/RHEL is too old and not supported........


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list