wu imapd has a update from fisher imap-2000 to just released imap-2000c. ( why not 2001 ? :) ( Ignore the mymaildir patch, that's for me ) [chrismcc@wednesday SPECS]$ diff -u imap.spec imap.spec.pg --- imap.spec Mon Nov 20 14:10:35 2000 +++ imap.spec.pg Sat Feb 3 15:34:20 2001 @@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ Summary: Server daemons for IMAP and POP network mail protocols. Name: imap -Version: 2000 -Release: 4 +Version: 2000c +Release: 4.03pg Epoch: 1 Copyright: BSD Group: System Environment/Daemons @@ -31,8 +31,9 @@ Patch5: imap-4.7c2-flock.patch Patch6: imap-4.7c2-setcred.patch Patch7: imap-2000-sparc.patch -Patch8: imap-2000-version.patch +Patch8: imap-2000c-version.patch Patch9: pine-4.30-boguswarning.patch +Patch10: imap-2000c-mymaildir.patch Buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-root Requires: pam >= 0.59 %if %{build_7} @@ -80,10 +81,13 @@ %patch4 -p1 -b .gssapi %endif %patch5 -p1 -b .flock -%patch6 -p1 -b .setcred -%patch7 -p1 -b .sparc +# needed ? backwards ? +# %patch6 -p1 -b .setcred +# already there +# %patch7 -p1 -b .sparc %patch8 -p1 -b .version %patch9 -p2 -b .boguswarning +%patch10 -b .mymaildir cp %{SOURCE8} src/osdep/unix/
Created attachment 8919 [details] updated rh version patch for wu-imapd
about patch6 In /src/osdep/unix/ckp_pmb.c The line added by the patch is pam_setcred (hdl,PAM_ESTABLISH_CRED); The source from the tarball is pam_setcred (hdl,PAM_DELETE_CRED); These seem oposite to each other. Which one is right? Is/could this be a security problem?
Created attachment 8920 [details] imapd ssl Makefile patch
Oops I forgot to rename the SSL makefile patch, change spec file accordingly Why are the openssl certs saved in /usr/share/ssl ? Would /etc/imapd/imapd.pem and /etc/imapd/ipop3d.pem be better? Maybe add a Makefile like apache?
Created attachment 8922 [details] imap-2000c-flock.patch
Note to self, in future _rename_ patches instead of overwriting old patch name. D'oh update spec to use this patch...
Crap... Note to self... "Check all open bugzilla reports relevant to a package before updating it, just in case some kind user has submitted patches and updates to the package already". Yes, it is official folks - I get to wear the retard hat for an hours worth of unnecessarily repeated work. ;o) ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris/testing for beta packages. BTW, I had the same double headshake as you with the PAM patch. I've Cc'd Nalin Dahyabhai, our pam guru to have a look at it and comment. Also, just a note, the "Copyright: BSD" is incorrect in your specfile. PINE and IMAP have a special UW license which is in the sources, and definitely not BSD. Our packages were incorrect before as well, but corrected now. Thanks again for submitting all of this. Hopefully in the future I will get things done in the right order. ;o)
Oh, about imap-2001 - it is a beta, and thus not a candidate for an errata release. I will likely add it to rawhide soon though. Leaving at NEEDINFO until I have confirmation about PAM stuff...
Ok, thanks again. The testing has shown that it solves open bugs against imap, and appears to work correctly. Nalin has confirmed that the PAM stuff in the current UW source of 2000c is indeed correct, and that our patch was wrong. ;o( This is also fixed in my current imap package soon to be released.
Errata release imap-2000c-7 includes these fixes. Also packages for 6.2 and 5.2 will be released simultaneously.