Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Review Request: maildrop|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Neal Becker <ndbecker2>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Status:||CLOSED DUPLICATE||QA Contact:||Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||axel.thimm, gauret, johan-fedora, laurent.rineau__fedora, mgarski|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2007-05-28 13:26:44 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Neal Becker 2006-04-10 10:52:14 EDT
Spec Name or Url: http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/maildrop.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/maildrop-1.8.1-1.4.src.rpm Description: Summary: maildrop mail filter/mail delivery agent Description: . Maildrop is a combination mail filter/mail delivery agent. Maildrop reads the message to be delivered to your mailbox, optionally reads instructions from a file how filter incoming mail, then based on these instructions may deliver mail to an alternate mailbox, or forward it, instead of dropping the message into your mailbox. . Maildrop uses a structured, real, meta-programming language in order to define filtering instructions. Its basic features are fast and efficient. At sites which carry a light load, the more advanced, CPU-demanding, features can be used to build very sophisticated mail filters. Maildrop deployments have been reported at sites that support as many as 30,000 mailboxes. . Maildrop mailing list: http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/courier-maildrop . This version is compiled with support for GDBM database files, maildir enhancements (folders+quotas), and userdb.
Comment 1 Michael Fleming 2006-04-11 07:15:31 EDT
This is a *very* old version of maildrop - 2.0.2 is current and is vastly improved on the old 1.x series. However newer versions dependent on a courier-authlib package at both build and runtime and no such package exists yet in Extras. Additionally, fam-devel no longer exists in Core (replace that with gamin-devel) and you might want to swap gdbm for db (--with-db=db in configure) as I find the latter a little more reliable. The spec definitely needs some work before it's ready for Extras (many of the %defines are not needed or not desirable, "make install" is preferred of "make install-strip" among others) On the upside, I've been packaging both this and maildrop for a while now (and courier-imap, but the spec file is a disaster area hence why I've not submitted it) If you want to try a more modern version I'm happy to put my courier-authlib package for review and you can build off of that. You can also have a look at the spec if you like (it too is built off Sam's distribution specfile but has been hacked around quite a bit since then) http://www.enlartenment.com/packages/fedora/5/SRPMS/courier-authlib-0.58-1.fc5.mf.src.rpm http://www.enlartenment.com/packages/fedora/5/SRPMS/maildrop-2.0.2-1.fc5.mf.src.rpm
Comment 2 Neal Becker 2006-04-11 08:27:51 EDT
I'm sorry, I meant maildrop-2.0.2. I didn't notice any need for courier-authlib. I don't have it and am using maildrop fine - maybe I'm not using those features? I'm only using it's mail filtering (as a procmail alternative). The spec file I used is from maildrop upstream with no change.
Comment 3 Neal Becker 2006-04-11 09:57:04 EDT
I have looked at your suggestions and made a new version: http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/maildrop.spec http://nbecker.dyndns.org:8080/maildrop-2.0.2-2.5.src.rpm AFAICT, courier-authlib is an optional part. Does anyone object to omitting it?
Comment 4 Laurent Rineau 2006-05-16 09:15:05 EDT
Mass-block FE-NEEDSPONSOR for the six review requestsÂ¹ of Neal Becker. Neal, when you get sponsorship, you will have to unblock it for all your requests. Â¹)Â Actually the four that do not block yet FE-NEEDSPONSOR.
Comment 5 Johan Kok 2006-05-19 02:54:53 EDT
(In reply to comment #3) > AFAICT, courier-authlib is an optional part. Does anyone object to omitting > it? I'm currently using maildrop with courier-authlib. When a new version of maildrop (of courier-authlib) is released I manualy build and upgrade the RPMS. I would appreciate support for courier-authlib in this maildrop package. As far as i know courier-authlib is not yet in FE or under review. Can I do anything to help with that?
Comment 6 Neal Becker 2006-05-19 07:50:47 EDT
Does it make sense to package courier-authlib separately, or is it only a compile-time option?
Comment 7 Johan Kok 2006-06-07 06:43:07 EDT
(In reply to comment #6) > Does it make sense to package courier-authlib separately, or is it only a > compile-time option? I believe packaging a separate courier-authlib makes sense. From the courier website: "The Courier Authentication Library is a generic authentication API that encapsulates the process of validating account passwords. (...) The Courier authentication library must be installed before building any Courier packages that needs direct access to mailboxes.". Besides that, packaging courier-authlib as a seperate package for FE makes it possible/easier to package other courier software (i.e. courier-mta org courier-imap) for FE.
Comment 8 Neal Becker 2006-09-12 08:31:54 EDT
Comment 9 Johan Kok 2006-09-22 16:57:24 EDT
(In reply to comment #8) > Check this: Looks great. In comment #1 Michael proposed to submit that package for review in Extras. Is that offer still available? Otherwise I could make this my first package contribution to FE, but I'm pretty confident that would take more time then when Michael puts his package up for review. In any case, I don't think courier-authlib is a blocker for this review. The maildrop package can always be 'improved' when/if courier-authlib becomes available in FE.
Comment 10 Johan Kok 2006-09-22 17:02:33 EDT
Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR since Neal is in cvsextras
Comment 11 Neal Becker 2006-09-22 19:04:22 EDT
(In reply to comment #1) > This is a *very* old version of maildrop - 2.0.2 is current and is vastly > improved on the old 1.x series. > > However newer versions dependent on a courier-authlib package at both build and > runtime and no such package exists yet in Extras. > > Additionally, fam-devel no longer exists in Core (replace that with gamin-devel) > and you might want to swap gdbm for db (--with-db=db in configure) as I find the > latter a little more reliable. > > The spec definitely needs some work before it's ready for Extras (many of the > %defines are not needed or not desirable, "make install" is preferred of "make > install-strip" among others) > > On the upside, I've been packaging both this and maildrop for a while now (and > courier-imap, but the spec file is a disaster area hence why I've not submitted > it) If you want to try a more modern version I'm happy to put my courier-authlib > package for review and you can build off of that. > > You can also have a look at the spec if you like (it too is built off Sam's > distribution specfile but has been hacked around quite a bit since then) > > http://www.enlartenment.com/packages/fedora/5/SRPMS/courier-authlib-0.58-1.fc5.mf.src.rpm > http://www.enlartenment.com/packages/fedora/5/SRPMS/maildrop-2.0.2-1.fc5.mf.src.rpm Mike, are you going to pursue submitting this to fedora-extras?
Comment 12 Johan Kok 2006-12-05 10:20:29 EST
(In reply to comment #11) > Mike, are you going to pursue submitting this to fedora-extras? FYI: A courier-authlib RPM is the review process now #208064
Comment 13 Michael Fleming 2006-12-06 04:02:39 EST
Yeah, I'll finish the review when I get a spare half hour (there's not much left to do IIRC). I've been quite busy at work so spare time is a premium :-). I might submit my courier-imap package once that's done, but getting it to play nice with rpmlint could be challenging (the existing spec and upgrade methods are... *interesting* as I try and keep Sam's way of doing things as best possible)
Comment 15 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-01-26 11:59:51 EST
Then.. what is the status of this bug?
Comment 16 Johan Kok 2007-02-05 11:44:48 EST
FYI: Version 2.0.3 of maildrop was released last December
Comment 17 Johan Kok 2007-02-05 11:48:04 EST
Whoops. Restoring NEEDINFO for this review, as I accidently removed it
Comment 18 Axel Thimm 2007-03-27 14:41:14 EDT
Recently procmail caused me some mail loss, and the bug is unfixable due to lack of maintainership for the last 6 years, so I moved to maildrop. The URLs in this report have went all bad, so I had to package from scratch. I've placed the packages in ATrpms and would be more than willing to submit them into Fedora. Should I take over this report or create a new one?
Comment 19 Neal Becker 2007-03-28 07:38:34 EDT
I'm using maildrop-2.0.2. Maybe you'd like to compare the spec file I've been using. It is here: https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/maildrop.spec
Comment 20 Johan Kok 2007-03-28 08:39:42 EDT
(In reply to comment #18) > I've placed the packages in ATrpms and would be more than willing to submit them > into Fedora. Should I take over this report or create a new one? Since this review seems to be stalled, I see no problem when you take over this report.
Comment 21 Marcin Garski 2007-05-09 13:49:59 EDT
Axel is there any progress in maildrop package submit?
Comment 22 Axel Thimm 2007-05-09 15:33:50 EDT
Here it is http://dl.atrpms.net/all/maildrop-2.0.3-2.at.src.rpm http://dl.atrpms.net/all/maildrop.spec But I think I'm supposed to reopen a new bugzilla ticket.
Comment 23 Axel Thimm 2007-05-28 13:26:44 EDT
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 241596 ***
Comment 24 Neal Becker 2007-05-29 09:11:08 EDT
It is now more than 1 year since I proposed adding this package and posted an RPM for review. Since there has been no progress, I propose to resubmit this. Here is an updated package: https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/maildrop-2.0.4-1.fc7.src.rpm https://nbecker.dyndns.org/RPM/maildrop.spec