Bug#868150: imapproxy: fails to start

2017-08-14 Thread Duck
Quack, On 08/08/2017 02:12 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > I have prepared the changes and submitted the required bug for > stable-proposed-updates here: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871451 > > I assume I need to hear some sort of ACK on that bug before I (ask my > sponsor to)

Bug#868150: imapproxy: fails to start

2017-08-07 Thread Richard Laager
On 07/18/2017 01:28 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > Agreed on stable-proposed-updates. I plan to prepare an upload in the next > few days. I have prepared the changes and submitted the required bug for stable-proposed-updates here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=871451 I assume I

Bug#868150: imapproxy: fails to start

2017-07-18 Thread Richard Laager
Agreed on stable-proposed-updates. I plan to prepare an upload in the next few days. -- Richard

Bug#868150: imapproxy: fails to start

2017-07-18 Thread duck
Quack, On 2017-07-16 16:00, Richard Laager wrote: From my first testing, it worked fine without PIDFile. Unfortunately, upon further testing, it seems to fail most of the time. Given that those errors seem harmless, I think setting PIDFile is the lesser of the two evils right now, so I'm stic

Bug#868150: imapproxy: fails to start

2017-07-16 Thread Richard Laager
With PIDFile=/run/imapproxy.pid, I get the following errors: PID file /run/imapproxy.pid not readable (yet?) after start: No such file or directory Supervising process 824 which is not our child. We'll most likely not notice when it exits. >From my first testing, it worked fine without PIDFile.

Bug#868150: imapproxy: fails to start

2017-07-14 Thread duck
On 2017-07-14 12:56, Richard Laager wrote: Is the PIDFile line actually necessary for you? Can you re-test without the PIDFile line in the service? « There is indeed not [Install] section. If I add one with "WantedBy=multi-user.target" I can enable the service but still it does not start proper

Bug#868150: imapproxy: fails to start

2017-07-13 Thread Richard Laager
Is the PIDFile line actually necessary for you? Can you re-test without the PIDFile line in the service? With that line, I get additional errors/warnings. Without it, systemd is still able to detect the main PID of the process. On 07/13/2017 02:52 AM, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote: > So better would

Bug#868150: imapproxy: fails to start

2017-07-13 Thread duck
Quack, On 2017-07-13 14:40, Richard Laager wrote: Does it still work for you with /var/run instead of /run? Please use /run, it's officially in use and the goal is to transition *to* it: https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/RunDirectory So better would be to change the path where the pidf

Bug#868150: imapproxy: fails to start

2017-07-12 Thread Richard Laager
On 07/12/2017 08:00 AM, Marc Dequènes (duck) wrote: > --- imapproxy.service.orig 2017-07-12 14:57:35.0 +0200 > +++ /lib/systemd/system/imapproxy.service 2017-07-12 > 14:50:15.0 +0200 > @@ -8,3 +8,8 @@ > Type=forking > ExecStartPre=/usr/share/imapproxy/prepare-chroot >

Bug#868150: imapproxy: fails to start

2017-07-12 Thread duck
Package: imapproxy Version: 1.2.8~svn20161210-2 Severity: grave Quack, The server does not start. Trying to restart it does not change anything. Here is the systemd status: # systemctl status imapproxy ● imapproxy.se