On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 07:08:15AM +0000, Franz Fellner wrote: > This might get challenging for distributions shipping live packages or > regular git snapshots.
I was not aware there are distros "blindy" packaging. Which ones do this? Or, do you mean they pick versions outside the official releases? > And how to deal with distributions patching imaplib2? That might get > intersting in case such a > patch fixes an issue offlineimap works around... Patches should be applied upstream in the first place. If patches are rejected, there likely are good reasons. > Of course one could mention in the readme to either not patch imaplib2 or use > the bundled one. Yes, we can only support "vanilla" imaplib2. Your point convince me this is not obvious. So, I'll make this explicit to make it clear. > But who knows what distris do in the end ;) You're right. However, it's quite easy to check if distros are doing bad things in this area because most of them work in the open. If we have doubts we can find a server with the package, download and check. The worst case is not the ditros. I assume distribution maintainers know what they do. The worst case is the users. Anybody could patch the imaplib2 library without even changing the version. Also, we don't have a strong policy. We allow any newer imaplib2 for flexibility. So, we have to explain why we can't support random versions of imaplib2. Goood points Franz. -- Nicolas Sebrecht _______________________________________________ OfflineIMAP-project mailing list: [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/offlineimap-project OfflineIMAP homepages: - https://github.com/OfflineIMAP - http://offlineimap.org
