[SOGo] SOGo on Debian Jessie?

[Janis Hamme]

Hi,

now that Debian Jessie is considered stable, are there any plans on
releasing Jessie packages with the next release?

Is anyone running the SOGo packages included in Debian (1.3.16 in
Wheezy, 2.2.9 in Jessie)? My major concern is if there are safe upgrade
paths for such version jumps.
If yes, I might consider to downgrade from 2.2.17 to 2.2.9 and keep it
running until the next Debian release. Would that be safe?

Janis

[Dominik Breu]

Hello,

i ask this question far back in mid march no awnser till today. But i
ran Sogo on my Debian Testing now jessie server and it works after i
mangaed to get it working. Had to merge wheezy jessie and unstable repos
together but when it runs it runs flawlessly.

greetings dominik

Post by Janis Hamme
Hi,
now that Debian Jessie is considered stable, are there any plans on
releasing Jessie packages with the next release?
Is anyone running the SOGo packages included in Debian (1.3.16 in
Wheezy, 2.2.9 in Jessie)? My major concern is if there are safe upgrade
paths for such version jumps.
If yes, I might consider to downgrade from 2.2.17 to 2.2.9 and keep it
running until the next Debian release. Would that be safe?
Janis

[Jan Krcmar]

hi,

i've created an inssue in bugzilla
http://www.sogo.nu/bugs/view.php?id=3218

hope the packages will be released soon

fous

Post by Dominik Breu
Hello,
i ask this question far back in mid march no awnser till today. But i
ran Sogo on my Debian Testing now jessie server and it works after i
mangaed to get it working. Had to merge wheezy jessie and unstable repos
together but when it runs it runs flawlessly.
greetings dominik

Post by Janis Hamme
Hi,
now that Debian Jessie is considered stable, are there any plans on
releasing Jessie packages with the next release?
Is anyone running the SOGo packages included in Debian (1.3.16 in
Wheezy, 2.2.9 in Jessie)? My major concern is if there are safe upgrade
paths for such version jumps.
If yes, I might consider to downgrade from 2.2.17 to 2.2.9 and keep it
running until the next Debian release. Would that be safe?
Janis

--
https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists

[Fox NET]

hello
I have tried other methods, so recompiling packets jessie and I is not had a problem, except for configuring packages

Voila

Michel

Post by Jan Krcmar
hi,
i've created an inssue in bugzilla
http://www.sogo.nu/bugs/view.php?id=3218
hope the packages will be released soon
fous

Post by Dominik Breu
Hello,
i ask this question far back in mid march no awnser till today. But i
ran Sogo on my Debian Testing now jessie server and it works after i
mangaed to get it working. Had to merge wheezy jessie and unstable repos
together but when it runs it runs flawlessly.
greetings dominik

Post by Janis Hamme
Hi,
now that Debian Jessie is considered stable, are there any plans on
releasing Jessie packages with the next release?
Is anyone running the SOGo packages included in Debian (1.3.16 in
Wheezy, 2.2.9 in Jessie)? My major concern is if there are safe upgrade
paths for such version jumps.
If yes, I might consider to downgrade from 2.2.17 to 2.2.9 and keep it
running until the next Debian release. Would that be safe?
Janis

--
https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists

--
https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists

[Ludovic Marcotte]

Post by Jan Krcmar
i've created an inssue in bugzilla
http://www.sogo.nu/bugs/view.php?id=3218
hope the packages will be released soon

Jessie builds are now available for x86_64:
http://inverse.ca/debian-nightly/pool/jessie/

We do NOT plan to release i386 builds for Jessie.

[Zhang Huangbin]

Jessie builds are now available for x86_64: http://inverse.ca/debian-nightly/pool/jessie/

Not yet a stable build?

We do NOT plan to release i386 builds for Jessie.

Why?

----
Zhang Huangbin, founder of iRedMail project: http://www.iredmail.org/

[Ludovic Marcotte]

Post by Zhang Huangbin
Not yet a stable build?

Because SOGo v2.3.0 is not released.

Post by Zhang Huangbin
Why?

Because there's virtually *no* download of the i386 arch on recent
distro we support. It's a waste of resources. If there's enough people
asking for it, we might provide them but in the meantime, we won't.

[Rodolfo José Castellanos J.]

+1 for i386/i686 packages for Debian Jessie.

Thanks!

Post by Zhang Huangbin
Not yet a stable build?

Because SOGo v2.3.0 is not released.

Post by Zhang Huangbin
Why?

Because there's virtually *no* download of the i386 arch on recent
distro we support. It's a waste of resources. If there's enough people
asking for it, we might provide them but in the meantime, we won't.
--
Ludovic Marcotte
***@inverse.ca  ::  +1.514.755.3630  ::  http://inverse.ca
Inverse inc. :: Leaders behind SOGo (http://sogo.nu) and PacketFence (http://packetfence.org)

[Tanstaafl]

Post by Rodolfo José Castellanos J.
+1 for i386/i686 packages for Debian Jessie.

Why on earth would anyone intentionally run an i386 version of anything
on a server today???

[Rodolfo José Castellanos J.]

When there's less than 4 Gigabytes of RAM, the empirical evidence I have is that an x86 distributtion offers a better performance than an amd64 one. For deployments of light load or simple exploration environments, it could be convenient also, taking advantage of existing hardware available with 32 bits microprocessors.

As far as I know the naming of the Debian port depends on the underlying microprocessor architecture. In https://www.debian.org/ports/ the adaption for 32 bits PC hardware is listed as "i386", but when installed it could be reported as i386 or i686 by the running Linux kernel. To ease the issue, it could be referred as x86. 

Post by Rodolfo José Castellanos J.
+1 for i386/i686 packages for Debian Jessie.

Why on earth would anyone intentionally run an i386 version of anything
on a server today???

[Zhang Huangbin]

Post by Rodolfo José Castellanos J.
As far as I know the naming of the Debian port depends on the underlying microprocessor architecture. In https://www.debian.org/ports/ the adaption for 32 bits PC hardware is listed as "i386", but when installed it could be reported as i386 or i686 by the running Linux kernel. To ease the issue, it could be referred as x86.

This is what i mean, "x86". Thanks Rodolfo.

And for new server hardware, you prefer x86_64/amd64, no problem
at all. but how about existing/old hardware? Trash them and buy
new hardware?

----
Zhang Huangbin, founder of iRedMail project: http://www.iredmail.org/

[Tanstaafl]

Post by Zhang Huangbin

On May 21, 2015, at 10:13 PM, Rodolfo José Castellanos J.
As far as I know the naming of the Debian port depends on the
underlying microprocessor architecture. In https://www.debian.org/ports/
the adaption for 32 bits PC hardware is listed as "i386", but when
installed it could be reported as i386 or i686 by the running Linux
kernel. To ease the issue, it could be referred as x86.

This is what i mean, "x86". Thanks Rodolfo.
And for new server hardware, you prefer x86_64/amd64, no problem
at all. but how about existing/old hardware? Trash them and buy
new hardware?

Most processors have been 64bit for - what, 8? 10 years now? It would
have to be really old hardware to be 32bit.

Like I said - if you want to stay with such dated hardware you will have
to live with the limitations and downsides...

[Tanstaafl]

On 5/21/2015 10:13 AM, Rodolfo José Castellanos J.

Post by Rodolfo José Castellanos J.
When there's less than 4 Gigabytes of RAM,

RAM is absurdly cheap, so there is no excuse for not adding more.

Post by Rodolfo José Castellanos J.
the empirical evidence I have is that an x86 distribution offers a
better performance than an amd64 one.

Maybe under certain extreme circumstances - like not enough RAM... ;)

Post by Rodolfo José Castellanos J.
For deployments of light load or simple exploration environments, it
could be convenient also, taking advantage of existing hardware
available with 32 bits microprocessors.

For small home shops just use a VM (64bit) with enough RAM allocated.

I see no problem with vendors with limited resources refusing to support
ancient/antiquated environments (unless it can be scripted and done with
little to no effort)...

[Zhang Huangbin]

Post by Tanstaafl
I see no problem with vendors with limited resources refusing to support
ancient/antiquated environments (unless it can be scripted and done with
little to no effort)...

Just curious, does SOGo team build packages with scripts or not?
It should be a one-time job for one Linux distribution release (e.g. Debian 7,
Debian 8). correct me if i was wrong.

----
Zhang Huangbin, founder of iRedMail project: http://www.iredmail.org/

[André Schild]

Post by Zhang Huangbin

Post by Tanstaafl
I see no problem with vendors with limited resources refusing to support
ancient/antiquated environments (unless it can be scripted and done with
little to no effort)...

Just curious, does SOGo team build packages with scripts or not?
It should be a one-time job for one Linux distribution release (e.g. Debian 7,
Debian 8). correct me if i was wrong.

The building is automated (Thats why we have nightlies)

In theorie it's a one time job.
In reality
- You have to make the scripts
- The builds can break for whatever reason
- There might be 32/64Bit issues which need tracking,debugging,fixing

So for me it makes sense to drop the 32bit builds.

If someone sponsors the 32bit builds, then inverse will probably happily
provide them in the future... ;)


André

[Ludovic Marcotte]

Post by André Schild
- You have to make the scripts

Checked.

Post by André Schild
- The builds can break for whatever reason

s/can/always/

Post by André Schild
- There might be 32/64Bit issues which need tracking,debugging,fixing

s/might be/are always/

Ludo

[Johannes Feldner]

SOHO: using my hardware as long as it does what i want it to do like i
want it to do. and small groups don't need big hardware.

Thanx to all of you for your great work!

J. Feldner
______

Post by Tanstaafl

Post by Rodolfo José Castellanos J.
+1 for i386/i686 packages for Debian Jessie.

Why on earth would anyone intentionally run an i386 version of anything
on a server today???