Refactoring up-imapproxy

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at
Fri Dec 28 19:56:08 UTC 2007

On 27.12.2007 22:13, Tim Jackson wrote:
> I'm importing up-imapproxy into EL-5.


> [...]
> Anyway, the point is that although it is a simple piece of software, the 
> packaging is a bit screwy. The software is generally known as 
> "up-imapproxy" but in some places (internally and externally) is 
> referred to as "imapproxy".
> Now, this package is already in Fedora, so I could leave things as they 
> are (the Fedora maintainer has pretty much just followed what upstream 
> does), or I can take this one opportunity to tidy things up. Brief 
> overview as currently packaged in Fedora:
> * Website:
> * Upstream tarball: up-imapproxy-x.y.z.tar.gz
> * Upstream references: vary between "up-imapproxy" and "imapproxy"
> * Package name in Fedora: up-imapproxy
> * Config: /etc/imapproxy.conf
> * Daemon: /usr/sbin/in.imapproxyd
> * Init script: /etc/init.d/imapproxy
> What I'm *proposing* to do is to patch it up to make it more consistent 
> as follows:
> * Package name in EPEL: up-imapproxy
> * Config: /etc/up-imapproxy.conf
> * Daemon: /usr/sbin/up-imapproxyd
> * Init script: /etc/init.d/up-imapproxy
> Any comments either way would be appreciated.

Here are my 2 cent:

* there is no rule that EPEL packages have to be similar to the one from
Fedora or based on those from Fedora (maybe such a rule should exist to
prevent users bypass review), but it helps everyone a lot afaics; fixes
can easily be floating back and forth and (more important) users that
know the package from Fedora can just use the one from EPEL (or vice
versa); that might not sound very important, but it IMHO is as
differences like those outline above create a lot of confusion for users

* what upstream does here looks to be confusing, but fixing this
confusion only in Fedora-land (either Fedora or EPEL or both) just adds
more confusion for everyone, as Howtos and Docs written from upstream or
written for other distributions won't "just work" in Fedora-land as
files are stored in different places

Thus is might be better for everyone to stick to the package design
what we have in Fedora for now, fix the naming problem upstream and then
adjust the packaging in Fedora-land to it.


More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list