Yesterday I was talking with one of my Colleagues about the Kolab
project's use of some of the newer features of IMAP, notably, annotations
and myrights.
It turns out Kolab ships a patched PHP to do this properly, and they've
been maintaining these patches for quite some time. In fact, they're up
to date with 5.3.2, as seen here:
http://kolab.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs-kolab.cgi/server/php/patches/php-5.3.2/
Now, the myrights patch was actually submitted as a feature request here:
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=43948
Which, it seems, has sat unattended for the past 2.5 years. I'm not sure
if the annotations patch has ever been submitted.
I'd like to get these patches into mainstream PHP so that we don't have to
ship some weird patched kolab-only IMAP module in Debian and Ubuntu. In
fact, I'm quite opposed to doing that at all, but this means having a
broken Kolab in Debian and Ubuntu (as I understand it, Horde uses the
myrights patch too). I'm just wondering what it will take to get these
patches merged into PHP. Do we need to update documentation as well?
Thanks very much for your time!
-Clint
I'd like to get these patches into mainstream PHP so that we don't have to
ship some weird patched kolab-only IMAP module in Debian and Ubuntu. In
fact, I'm quite opposed to doing that at all, but this means having a
broken Kolab in Debian and Ubuntu (as I understand it, Horde uses the
myrights patch too). I'm just wondering what it will take to get these
patches merged into PHP. Do we need to update documentation as well?
I can't see any reason for not committing both patches - other then
resolving the 2 TODOs.
The docs should be updated after committing too, as usual.
-Hannes
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Hannes Magnusson
hannes.magnusson@gmail.com wrote:
I'd like to get these patches into mainstream PHP so that we don't have to
ship some weird patched kolab-only IMAP module in Debian and Ubuntu. In
fact, I'm quite opposed to doing that at all, but this means having a
broken Kolab in Debian and Ubuntu (as I understand it, Horde uses the
myrights patch too). I'm just wondering what it will take to get these
patches merged into PHP. Do we need to update documentation as well?
Hi,
I was looking at annotations patch and it seems that my c-client does
not support the functionality (2007b on Debian Lenny). Do the
annotations require a custom patch to c-client as well?
--
Mikko Koppanen
hi,
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Hannes Magnusson
hannes.magnusson@gmail.com wrote:I'd like to get these patches into mainstream PHP so that we don't have to
ship some weird patched kolab-only IMAP module in Debian and Ubuntu. In
fact, I'm quite opposed to doing that at all, but this means having a
broken Kolab in Debian and Ubuntu (as I understand it, Horde uses the
myrights patch too). I'm just wondering what it will take to get these
patches merged into PHP. Do we need to update documentation as well?Hi,
I was looking at annotations patch and it seems that my c-client does
not support the functionality (2007b on Debian Lenny). Do the
annotations require a custom patch to c-client as well?
I was not sure about that either, but the latest is 2007e and that's
what I want to test against before applying this patch.
I also request to upload patches in the report instead of external
links or mailing lists attachment, to ease reviews and avoid
confusions between the various versions. See the bug report.
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Hannes Magnusson
hannes.magnusson@gmail.com wrote:I'd like to get these patches into mainstream PHP so that we don't have to
ship some weird patched kolab-only IMAP module in Debian and Ubuntu. In
fact, I'm quite opposed to doing that at all, but this means having a
broken Kolab in Debian and Ubuntu (as I understand it, Horde uses the
myrights patch too). I'm just wondering what it will take to get these
patches merged into PHP. Do we need to update documentation as well?Hi,
I was looking at annotations patch and it seems that my c-client does
not support the functionality (2007b on Debian Lenny). Do the
There is a "TODO" item in the patch (which I mentioned should be fixed
:)) to check for that functionality during configure, rather then
hardcode it enabled :)
-Hannes
Mikko Koppanen wrote:
I was looking at annotations patch and it seems that my c-client does
not support the functionality (2007b on Debian Lenny). Do the
annotations require a custom patch to c-client as well?
The request to include the annotations patch at Debian is at:
http://bugs.debian.org/456947
But as you can see, it is marked as blocked by
http://bugs.debian.org/456591
(the request against uw-imap/libc-client to include the patch.)
Therefore, the blocker at the php level is enabling the annotations code at
configure time if the system supports it. Of course, support on libc-client
is necessary for it to be of any use.
I just talked to Jonas Smedegaard (the Debian maintainer of libc-client,)
and apparently the reason for not merging it is that the code is dead
upstream and unmaintainable. A dead end. While digging for alternatives, it
appears that there was a discussion in 2004 for FC2 about the situation of
libc-client, but besides that: nothing.
As it seems, the best and maintainable solution is to switch to some other
alternative library (sadly, there's no such candidate atm.)
HTH
--
Raphael Geissert
Raphael Geissert wrote:
As it seems, the best and maintainable solution is to switch to some other
alternative library (sadly, there's no such candidate atm.)
Actually, I wonder if the imap extension shouldn't be dropped altogether in
trunk. The libraries written in PHP are actually more reliable and work
better.
Regards,
Raphael Geissert
hi,
Mikko Koppanen wrote:
I was looking at annotations patch and it seems that my c-client does
not support the functionality (2007b on Debian Lenny). Do the
annotations require a custom patch to c-client as well?The request to include the annotations patch at Debian is at:
http://bugs.debian.org/456947But as you can see, it is marked as blocked by
http://bugs.debian.org/456591(the request against uw-imap/libc-client to include the patch.)
Therefore, the blocker at the php level is enabling the annotations code at
configure time if the system supports it. Of course, support on libc-client
is necessary for it to be of any use.I just talked to Jonas Smedegaard (the Debian maintainer of libc-client,)
and apparently the reason for not merging it is that the code is dead
upstream and unmaintainable. A dead end. While digging for alternatives, it
appears that there was a discussion in 2004 for FC2 about the situation of
libc-client, but besides that: nothing.
I don't see a problem to include that in PHP as long as it is well
done. Mikko updated the patches nicely, both the php and the c-client
patch.
As it seems, the best and maintainable solution is to switch to some other
alternative library (sadly, there's no such candidate atm.)
What make you think that c-client is dead? I have seen updates last
year and I know that the main developer still works and support this
library. I don't think either that using 6 years old discussions to
decide something is a good idea. Something like that happened for php
and gd with Etch, and it was a total fiasco.
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
2010.07.30 17:13 Pierre Joye rašė:
What make you think that c-client is dead? I have seen updates last
year and I know that the main developer still works and support this
library.
IMHO main developer works on Panda IMAP. Source code is not publicly
available (http://panda.com/imap/FAQ.html#panda). Last UW IMAP release was
in 2008-12-17 and UW fired their IMAP developer team (Crispin's email is
somewhere on IMAP mailing list, can't find link right now).
http://panda.com/imap/ states that they don't support UW IMAP.
UW IMAP and c-client might offer reference IMAP implementation, but you
should ask sane packager or server admin what they think about package
configuration options. Or lack of any supported configuration files.
--
Tomas
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Tomas Kuliavas
tokul@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
UW IMAP and c-client might offer reference IMAP implementation, but you
should ask sane packager or server admin what they think about package
configuration options. Or lack of any supported configuration files.
I did not say something about the quality but only about
availability/support. But we agree on one thing, there is a cruel need
for good imap library. etpan works well for desktop but does not fit
well for web (referring to the conclusion of the developer of the php
binding in pecl).
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
Pierre Joye wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Raphael Geissert geissert@php.net
wrote:As it seems, the best and maintainable solution is to switch to some
other alternative library (sadly, there's no such candidate atm.)What make you think that c-client is dead? I have seen updates last
year and I know that the main developer still works and support this
library. I don't think either that using 6 years old discussions to
decide something is a good idea.
Tomas already clarified that point.
Something like that happened for php
and gd with Etch, and it was a total fiasco.
I talked to Jonas about gd too, the failed collaboration attempt, etc, and
I would like if we could try to make it work. However, that's a different
topic and should be discussed separately. I hope we can count on you.
Cheers,
Raphael Geissert
Pierre Joye wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Raphael Geissert geissert@php.net
wrote:As it seems, the best and maintainable solution is to switch to some
other alternative library (sadly, there's no such candidate atm.)What make you think that c-client is dead? I have seen updates last
year and I know that the main developer still works and support this
library. I don't think either that using 6 years old discussions to
decide something is a good idea.Tomas already clarified that point.
There is nothing clarified here. Yes, the c-client is closed to death
but I don't see anything close to it out there, from a C/C++ point of
view (with a usable license, there are some good libs under gpl,
sadly). And yes, there are very good user land implementation out
there as well. Does it mean that we should give up on having imap
support in core? I don't think so :).
Cheers,
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
Thanks everyone for having a look at this.
I'll track the status in the bug from here on.
Yesterday I was talking with one of my Colleagues about the Kolab
project's use of some of the newer features of IMAP, notably, annotations
and myrights.It turns out Kolab ships a patched PHP to do this properly, and they've
been maintaining these patches for quite some time. In fact, they're up
to date with 5.3.2, as seen here:http://kolab.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs-kolab.cgi/server/php/patches/php-5.3.2/
Now, the myrights patch was actually submitted as a feature request here:
http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=43948
Which, it seems, has sat unattended for the past 2.5 years. I'm not sure
if the annotations patch has ever been submitted.I'd like to get these patches into mainstream PHP so that we don't have to
ship some weird patched kolab-only IMAP module in Debian and Ubuntu. In
fact, I'm quite opposed to doing that at all, but this means having a
broken Kolab in Debian and Ubuntu (as I understand it, Horde uses the
myrights patch too). I'm just wondering what it will take to get these
patches merged into PHP. Do we need to update documentation as well?Thanks very much for your time!
-Clint