Here's a patch as well as patched specfile the allows for the building of the imap server portion, toggled via macro define: %define libonly 1 As an aside, why name this pkg libc-client? Wouldn't imap-libs (and imap-devel) provide for a simpler/cleaner upgrade path?
Created attachment 99422 [details] patch to include ability to build imap-server
Created attachment 99423 [details] specfile including ability to build/include imap server
The package is named libc-client, because the UW imap server is intentionally no longer shipped with the OS and not supported, however there are other pieces of software present which currently rely on the c-client library which ships with UW imap. Since the package is shipped solely to provide the c-client library to these specific applications, it is named libc-client (which IMHO is confusing as it sounds like a client for the C library, but then the library's own name "c-client" is kindof silly anyway, so it's at least consistently silly) ;o)
And hence, WONTFIX, I'd say. The UW imap server can easily be packaged independently of the libc-client package, if really you want to do that.
I know why the name libc-client was chosen, I just think it's a bad choice, 1. It's confusing (libc-c?), imap-libs is more descriptive, and is at least based on the upstream tarball (that's admittedly a pet-peave of mine, packages should preserve their upstream heritage). 2. keeping/using imap, imap-libs, imap-devel provides simpler/cleanup upgrade path, from previous imap, imap-devel releases. and (IMHO) 3. Purposely omitting at least the *ability* to build the imap server portion is lame, especially considering I did the hard work for you, providing a working patch/specfile.
Rex: Why can't you do this as an addition "extras" or something instead it having to be in the OS proper?
Sure, it (the server build option) can be in "extras", but it's a shame to have essentially the same pkg in 2 places. At this point, my biggest beef is naming.
FYI, "extras" submission: http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1838 including libc-client -> imap-libs rename
Certain Red Hat developers have taken an active interest in discouraging the use of these UW software because they are slow, insecure and buggy (race conditions, severe code quality concerns). They also do not appreciate the attitude of a certain upstream developer. Note that I personally don't care at all about this package. So why not remove it entirely from FC3, and let the community maintain it however they wish in Extras?
AFAIK, the only reason this package (libc-client) is currently in Core is for php-imap. So, if this goes, so does php-imap as well.
*** Bug 132928 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://rpms.www.sumu.org/php-imap-4.3.8.2002e-1.i386.rpm (fc1) http://rpms.www.sumu.org/php-imap-4.3.8.2002e-1.src.rpm standalone php-imap rpm that statically links c-client.a and removes need for libc-client packages
Ah, heck, let's just get this stuffed into Fedora Extras. Yes, I'm the sucker^?^?^? err... volunteer to do it.