2.1.16-2.2.3 on Linux

2004-02-03 Thread Ian G Batten
On my small personal server, supporting a few family members, I run Cyrus latest where possible. I was running 2.1.16 with every database set to skiplist. Upgrading to 2.2.3 with the same ./configure command ./configure --with-openssl --with-sasl --without-cmulocal --with-cyrus-user= cyrus

Re: 2.1.16-2.2.3 on Linux

2004-02-03 Thread Rob Siemborski
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Ian G Batten wrote: On my small personal server, supporting a few family members, I run Cyrus latest where possible. I was running 2.1.16 with every database set to skiplist. Upgrading to 2.2.3 with the same ./configure command You should read the 2.2.3 upgrade

Re: 2.1.16-2.2.3 on Linux

2004-02-03 Thread Rob Siemborski
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Ian G Batten wrote: It's in changes.html. It didn't leap out at me when I switched, so perhaps it might be worth making louder noises about. Actually, I was referring to install-upgrade.html. I'm not sure where we'd put this sort of stuff that is more obvious than the

Re: 2.1.16-2.2.3 on Linux

2004-02-03 Thread Rob Siemborski
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Ian G Batten wrote: I thought that meant ``no change''. Looking at it more closely, the default format for deliver.db is still Berkeley, hence my problem. I think it would be worth being more specific than ``the default backend''. All of the default values for

Re: 2.1.16-2.2.3 on Linux

2004-02-03 Thread Ian G Batten
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004, Rob Siemborski wrote: On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Ian G Batten wrote: On my small personal server, supporting a few family members, I run Cyrus latest where possible. I was running 2.1.16 with every database set to skiplist. Upgrading to 2.2.3 with the same ./configure

Re: 2.1.16-2.2.3 on Linux

2004-02-03 Thread Ian G Batten
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004, Rob Siemborski wrote: On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Ian G Batten wrote: It's in changes.html. It didn't leap out at me when I switched, so perhaps it might be worth making louder noises about. Actually, I was referring to install-upgrade.html. I'm not sure where we'd put

Re: 2.1.16-2.2.3 on Linux

2004-02-03 Thread Ian G Batten
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004, Rob Siemborski wrote: On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Ian G Batten wrote: I thought that meant ``no change''. Looking at it more closely, the default format for deliver.db is still Berkeley, hence my problem. I think it would be worth being more specific than ``the default

Re: 2.1.16-2.2.3 on Linux

2004-02-03 Thread Ken Murchison
Ian G Batten wrote: On Tue, 03 Feb 2004, Rob Siemborski wrote: On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Ian G Batten wrote: I thought that meant ``no change''. Looking at it more closely, the default format for deliver.db is still Berkeley, hence my problem. I think it would be worth being more specific than