Refactoring up-imapproxy

[Tim Jackson]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

[inconsistent naming of stuff in up-imapproxy]

> * 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

Indeed, which is why I wanted to involve other people. In a way it's a 
choice of the lesser of two evils: inconsistencies between Fedora and 
EPEL, and inconsistencies within the package itself.

> * 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

Fair point.

> 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.

OK, I think that was a well-reasoned argument. However, one thing I 
omitted to mention was that the current layout does cause the following 
from rpmlint:

W: incoherent-init-script-name imapproxy

I do think if we are going to call the package "up-imapproxy" then the 
init script should also be "up-imapproxy" (even if we leave the config 
file location alone), and this is something that we are not "fixing" in 
Fedora land but rather just being self-consistent in doing. This is 
probably the thing that annoys me most, since I inevitably (in Fedora) 
try to do "service up-imapproxy start", having just installed a package 
called "up-imapproxy". I personally thing this is a mistake in the 
Fedora package and is worth fixing for the EPEL branch (and probably in 
Fedora for F9 too, although the current Fedora maintainer seems to be 
unresponsive).

Tim