Debian package outdated?

[Jim Holland]

On Tue, 5 Sep 2006, Alex Pimperton wrote:

> > As an alternative, involving less work for you, why not simply recommend
> > that Debian users install from the tarball (so they can always keep up to
> > date), but provide some basic instructions on customising the installation 
> > for Debian?
>
> I'm not demanding a Debian package as I know how much work keeping a
> package updated is, especially one that changes as frequently as
> MailScanner, but I would be very sorry to see Julian take this line.
> 
> Keeping software updated outside of apt is a pain and I personally
> (don't know about other Debian users) try and minimise software on my
> servers that isn't "apt-get-able".
> 
> I would also suggest that at a time when Ubuntu is making major
> progress, and the number of users that will be using an apt based system
> is increasing, to abandon the Debian package would be a mistake.

I agree with all the above - I don't want to see the Debian package
abandoned either.  However in the meantime the Debian package is getting
rather old to be recommended to Debian users, so they urgently need some
specific help on installing from the tarball.

Someone else commented however that the major software for any OS should
always be installed from tarballs for best reliabiity - ie the kernel, and
the main services running on the machine, eg the MTA, apache etc.  As a
sendmail user under both Red Hat and Debian I have followed this approach,
and the same with MailScanner. (I realise that there is at least one Linux
distribution - Gentoo I think - that takes it to the extreme of insisting
that everything should be compiled locally rather than installed as a
binary.)

Regards

Jim Holland
System Administrator
MANGO - Zimbabwe's non-profit e-mail service