Re: Which (if any) deb-package of qpsmtpd 0.40?
On 2007-08-24 16:07:13 +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: > >I'm considering to try a deb-package of 0.40 on a way less than mission > critical mx running debian stable... > >Does anyone here have any experiences with using qpsmtpd from either >lenny or etch-backports (any other?); is it even worth bothering with them > at all (compared with just installing/setting it up yourself), or will they > just end up being a source of problems? I've been running the package from lenny on etch on my home system since the day it was released and didn't have any problems so far. Your mail reminded me that I wanted to upgrade it on a few other boxes which are still running sarge as well. Just did on the first system and it also seems to work well. hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer| I know I'd be respectful of a pirate |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder. | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ |-- Sam in "Freefall" signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Which (if any) deb-package of qpsmtpd 0.40?
On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 04:07:13PM +0200, Tony L. Svanstrom wrote: >Does anyone here have any experiences with using qpsmtpd from either >lenny or etch-backports (any other?); is it even worth bothering with them > at all (compared with just installing/setting it up yourself), or will they > just end up being a source of problems? I'm the Debian maintainer of the qpsmtpd package, and I customarily do production testing on stable for a few days before uploading new upstream versions to unstable. Since sid/lenny are drifting away from etch in terms of their dependencies, I do suggest rebuilding the package on stable to avoid unintended upgrades of perl, libc, etc to the sid/lenny versions, but that's not because of qpsmtpd's own needs, just the nature of package backports in general. -- Devin \ aqua(at)devin.com, IRC:Requiem; http://www.devin.com Carraway \ 1024D/E9ABFCD2: 13E7 199E DD1E 65F0 8905 2E43 5395 CA0D E9AB FCD2
