I realize that there have been some big changes in features and configuration file settings between 0.99.xx and 1.0-stable, so when I went to perform an upgrade on our testing server, I carefully combed through the configuration files and matched up everything I could. I fired up dovecot-1.0-stable and was pleased to see that it was happily running. I attempted to connect to it, and discovered that it wasn't listening to any ports.. then I realized that the app had crashed due to a typo in the config file (oops). Fixed that, started it up, and it was happily running and listening. However, it wouldn't authenticate any users.. Backing down to the 0.99.14 version that we had installed allowed for authentication (against ldap) to work just fine.. Is there anything that I should be looking for within the dovecot-1.0-stable that is dramatically different in regards to user authentication? -Rich
On Tue, 2005-04-26 at 11:51 -0400, Rich West wrote:> I realize that there have been some big changes in features and > configuration file settings between 0.99.xx and 1.0-stable, so when I > went to perform an upgrade on our testing server, I carefully combed > through the configuration files and matched up everything I could. > > I fired up dovecot-1.0-stable and was pleased to see that it was happily > running. I attempted to connect to it, and discovered that it wasn't > listening to any ports.. then I realized that the app had crashed due to > a typo in the config file (oops). Fixed that, started it up, and it was > happily running and listening.Getting a few minutes old 1.0-stable would also be useful to avoid the mbox performance problems that I managed to put into it a few days ago :)> However, it wouldn't authenticate any users.. Backing down to the > 0.99.14 version that we had installed allowed for authentication > (against ldap) to work just fine.. > > Is there anything that I should be looking for within the > dovecot-1.0-stable that is dramatically different in regards to user > authentication?Here's something: http://wiki.dovecot.org/moin.cgi/UpgradingDovecot But I don't think there was supposed to be any LDAP changes. If you set auth_verbose = yes, what does it say the problem is? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20050426/a3861b5d/attachment-0001.bin>
--On Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:23 PM +0300 Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote:> http://wiki.dovecot.org/moin.cgi/UpgradingDovecotWill 1.0-stable make it into Fedora Core 4? Current version there (in FC4T2) is 0.99.14-2. <http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/test/3.91/i386/os/SRPMS/>
>Getting a few minutes old 1.0-stable would also be useful to avoid the >mbox performance problems that I managed to put into it a few days >ago :) > >I had been following the threads, so I was keeping my eye out for a stable "stable" release. :)>>However, it wouldn't authenticate any users.. Backing down to the >>0.99.14 version that we had installed allowed for authentication >>(against ldap) to work just fine.. >> >>Is there anything that I should be looking for within the >>dovecot-1.0-stable that is dramatically different in regards to user >>authentication? >>I discovered that the SPEC file that I used to build my RPM (after some minor modification to the SPEC file to properly handle the stable release numbers (date specific)) created imap, imaps, pop3, pop3s in /etc/pam.d, but didn't create a "dovecot" file (which is really all it needs). I symbolically linked dovecot to point to imap, restarted dovecot, and all was well. I looked at the "Upgrade" link you pointed me to, specifically mentioning that the .subscriptions file had changed to "subscriptions" (minus the initial period).. I didn't have a chance to change mine before my latest tests, but all of my "subscribed" folders came up just fine. Odd.. -Rich