Hi
I'm importing up-imapproxy into EL-5. This is a really useful IMAP proxy for anyone with a webmail system (e.g. Squirrelmail) which constantly opens and closes IMAP connections; it caches them and speeds things up.
Anyway, the point is that although it is a simple piece of software, the packaging is a bit screwy. The software is generally known as "up-imapproxy" but in some places (internally and externally) is referred to as "imapproxy".
Now, this package is already in Fedora, so I could leave things as they are (the Fedora maintainer has pretty much just followed what upstream does), or I can take this one opportunity to tidy things up. Brief overview as currently packaged in Fedora:
* Website: www.imapproxy.org * Upstream tarball: up-imapproxy-x.y.z.tar.gz * Upstream references: vary between "up-imapproxy" and "imapproxy"
* Package name in Fedora: up-imapproxy * Config: /etc/imapproxy.conf * Daemon: /usr/sbin/in.imapproxyd * Init script: /etc/init.d/imapproxy
What I'm *proposing* to do is to patch it up to make it more consistent as follows:
* Package name in EPEL: up-imapproxy * Config: /etc/up-imapproxy.conf * Daemon: /usr/sbin/up-imapproxyd * Init script: /etc/init.d/up-imapproxy
Any comments either way would be appreciated.
Thanks
Tim
On 27.12.2007 22:13, Tim Jackson wrote:
I'm importing up-imapproxy into EL-5.
thx!
[...] Anyway, the point is that although it is a simple piece of software, the packaging is a bit screwy. The software is generally known as "up-imapproxy" but in some places (internally and externally) is referred to as "imapproxy".
Now, this package is already in Fedora, so I could leave things as they are (the Fedora maintainer has pretty much just followed what upstream does), or I can take this one opportunity to tidy things up. Brief overview as currently packaged in Fedora:
Website: www.imapproxy.org
Upstream tarball: up-imapproxy-x.y.z.tar.gz
Upstream references: vary between "up-imapproxy" and "imapproxy"
Package name in Fedora: up-imapproxy
Config: /etc/imapproxy.conf
Daemon: /usr/sbin/in.imapproxyd
Init script: /etc/init.d/imapproxy
What I'm *proposing* to do is to patch it up to make it more consistent as follows:
- Package name in EPEL: up-imapproxy
- Config: /etc/up-imapproxy.conf
- Daemon: /usr/sbin/up-imapproxyd
- Init script: /etc/init.d/up-imapproxy
Any comments either way would be appreciated.
Here are my 2 cent:
* there is no rule that EPEL packages have to be similar to the one from Fedora or based on those from Fedora (maybe such a rule should exist to prevent users bypass review), but it helps everyone a lot afaics; fixes can easily be floating back and forth and (more important) users that know the package from Fedora can just use the one from EPEL (or vice versa); that might not sound very important, but it IMHO is as differences like those outline above create a lot of confusion for users
* what upstream does here looks to be confusing, but fixing this confusion only in Fedora-land (either Fedora or EPEL or both) just adds more confusion for everyone, as Howtos and Docs written from upstream or written for other distributions won't "just work" in Fedora-land as files are stored in different places
Thus is might be better for everyone to stick to the package design what we have in Fedora for now, fix the naming problem upstream and then adjust the packaging in Fedora-land to it.
CU knurd
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
[inconsistent naming of stuff in up-imapproxy]
- there is no rule that EPEL packages have to be similar to the one from
Fedora or based on those from Fedora (maybe such a rule should exist to prevent users bypass review), but it helps everyone a lot afaics; fixes can easily be floating back and forth and (more important) users that know the package from Fedora can just use the one from EPEL (or vice versa); that might not sound very important, but it IMHO is as differences like those outline above create a lot of confusion for users
Indeed, which is why I wanted to involve other people. In a way it's a choice of the lesser of two evils: inconsistencies between Fedora and EPEL, and inconsistencies within the package itself.
- what upstream does here looks to be confusing, but fixing this
confusion only in Fedora-land (either Fedora or EPEL or both) just adds more confusion for everyone, as Howtos and Docs written from upstream or written for other distributions won't "just work" in Fedora-land as files are stored in different places
Fair point.
Thus is might be better for everyone to stick to the package design what we have in Fedora for now, fix the naming problem upstream and then adjust the packaging in Fedora-land to it.
OK, I think that was a well-reasoned argument. However, one thing I omitted to mention was that the current layout does cause the following from rpmlint:
W: incoherent-init-script-name imapproxy
I do think if we are going to call the package "up-imapproxy" then the init script should also be "up-imapproxy" (even if we leave the config file location alone), and this is something that we are not "fixing" in Fedora land but rather just being self-consistent in doing. This is probably the thing that annoys me most, since I inevitably (in Fedora) try to do "service up-imapproxy start", having just installed a package called "up-imapproxy". I personally thing this is a mistake in the Fedora package and is worth fixing for the EPEL branch (and probably in Fedora for F9 too, although the current Fedora maintainer seems to be unresponsive).
Tim
Tim Jackson wrote:
[discussions re packaging of up-imapproxy]
For the record, I went with the Fedora packaging for now (with minor tidy ups), not least because upstream has "imapproxy" as the name of its suggested init script. It's all a bit inconsistent, but I have already been in contact with upstream to request that they consider making it more consistent.
Tim
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org