[Bug 585] Review Request: z-push - ActiveSync over-the-air implementation for mobile syncing

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585





--- Comment #20 from Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de>  2009-08-02 16:17:12 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> - Will this part from the file section work if apache is not yet installed? 
> %attr(-,apache,apache) %dir %{_localstatedir}/lib/zarafa/%{name}/state/
> Afaics the user is created as a %pre script in apache, so I guess it won't
> work. Maybe a "Requires(pre):" will do it (not sure, I never packaged or
> reviewed PHP stuff up to now). Or am I missing something? And will that apache
> perm really work if other webservers are used?

The RPM dependency ordering causes z-push -> php -> httpd, which are installed
in the reversed order during dependency satisfy. It will work the same way, as
phpMyAdmin, phpPgAdmin and phpldapadmin are doing for example. You're right, I
should replace "webserver" by "httpd" like e.g. phpldapadmin is doing. Thanks
for pointing out that.

> - Is "Requires: php >= 4" really the proper way for the dep here? Shouldn't
> that be something like "php-api = %{php_apiver}" (at least on current Fedora?
> might be different in EL land...)

The php-api dependency is only required for binaries, that depend on the PHP
ABI and would break if ABI changes, but soname doesn't change. The scripts do
not depend on any ABI, they are just interpreted at runtime. It's like at Perl
I would say. Yes, when reading http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP, 
it's not very clear.

> - Hmm, the license field is quite long an kind of breaks the output of "rpm
> -qip z-push-1.2.2-1.src.rpm" -- but I see no easy way around that :-/

We could trunicate to "GPLv2 without distribution in the US" which is a bit
shorter maybe. But breaks the output, too.

> - is there any chance to get those patches and config files (or a different
> solution to solve the problem at hand) upstream?
> 
> - this install document afaics might be helpful even for users of this rpm, so
> you might want to consider shipping it (maybe in a adjusted way?) 

I'm working together with upstream to try to get rid of this. The problem is,
that z-push can be used in two ways: One is for Zarafa, the original way and
for second for IMAP/Maildir/vCard. But you can use both in parallel as well.
Upstream tells just to do two z-push installs then. As z-push is mostly used
for Zarafa per default and by history and it can be provided in a configure-
free way, I split this up into two packages - which also avoids to require the
Zarafa package with php-mapi by default for Z-Push <-> IMAP/Maildir/vCard only
users. Main problem behind is, that RPM in Fedora still doesn't support soft 
dependencies (unsatisfied dependencies), so these split-up, patches etc.

The INSTALL document from the tarball is shipped in two different slightly 
modified ways with each RPM package as README, so that it is suitable and
hopefully doesn't confuse end users. Just compare INSTALL and README files.

> - did not try if this package actually works; trusting the packager in this
> regard

Thank you, package is already in use at customers at work and by some other
Zarafa and/or CentOS users.

> forgot something: should this package name start with "php-" ?

No, it's not a PHP extension but a software using PHP. Like not every software
depending on Perl is called perl-* for example.

Hopefully I clarified things a bit. It's a tricky situation, I know.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.