Description: Imapproxy was written to compensate for webmail clients that are unable to maintain persistent connections to an IMAP server. Most webmail clients need to log in to an IMAP server for nearly every single transaction. This behaviour can cause tragic performance problems on the IMAP server. imapproxy tries to deal with this problem by leaving server connections open for a short time after a webmail client logs out. When the webmail client connects again, imapproxy will determine if there's a cached connection available and reuse it if possible. SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/up-imapproxy.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/up-imapproxy-1.2.6-1.fc9.src.rpm Makefile.in does not have DESTDIR - patch sent to upstream There are some simple to remove warnings (while building) -- patch sent But I don't consider them as blockers.
I don't think you need a whole new review request for this since there are no major changes - you just want to take ownership, right?
I am not sure. Looking on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/OrphanedPackages it looks like I need a review as package was last updated long back. Thanks,
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)) [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type:GPLv2+ [x] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, contain ing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of package:75f497e3fda44ff1526c46ac93e5c863bf6e0963 up-imapproxy-1.2.6.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. === SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English langua ges, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64, F7/x86_64 [?] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [x] Package functions as described. [x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [x] File based requires are sane. Notes ===== The package itself seems fine and functional. However the init script needs a bit of rework, it still returns error code 0 both for normal start and as an error if one tries to do "service imapproxy stop" when the service is already stopped (according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FCNewInit/Initscripts in this last case return code should be 7 - program is not running ). Hence the blocker bug 247084 should remain open. The other 2 blockers can be closed once this newer version is built. APPROVED but please fix the init script as soon as you can.
Thanks for reminding. I will do it ASAP -- I have some more initscripts to fix also.
SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/up-imapproxy-1.2.6-2.fc9.src.rpm SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/up-imapproxy.spec Fixed
Build
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: up-imapproxy New Branches: epel7 Owners: cmadams timj wolfy InitialCC: Please add branch for EPEL 7
Git done (by process-git-requests).
By the way, I see that this problem so and so has not been solved, I think we should find a solution for it, because I am now a student at the University of Pittsburgh and unfortunately I also encountered this problem and we can not do team work, I hope this source will help us https://phdessay.com/free-essays-on/team-work/ because otherwise we will have negative grades more students, besides that I would like to know if anyone else has tried to solve the given problem, because from what I see it has more time. What stage are we at and if I can help you with anything?