Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 120873
update to imap-2004a (+ rename -> imap-libs)
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:10:40 EST
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
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
2. keeping/using imap, imap-libs, imap-devel provides
simpler/cleanup upgrade path, from previous imap, imap-devel
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:
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. ***
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.