Bug 185359

Summary: Review Request: kchm - CHM file viewer
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Patrice Dumas <pertusus>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: John Mahowald <jpmahowald>
Status: CLOSED DEFERRED QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: rdieter
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-07-22 19:05:56 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Description Patrice Dumas 2006-03-13 22:55:23 UTC
SRPM Name or Url: 

This is a chm file viewer + corresponding kpart and kio slave for KDE.
It based on libchm and libchm++.

Comment 1 Patrice Dumas 2006-03-13 22:59:47 UTC
Thanks to Rex and Jochen for helping me packaging it.

Jochen has allready pointed out that there is a deficiency:
- - Mime binding doesn't work.

I don't know what it means, but here it is ;-)

Comment 2 Patrice Dumas 2006-03-14 19:37:10 UTC
I think I fixed the mime handling in the updated version:


Comment 3 John Mahowald 2006-05-29 22:04:28 UTC
Not building. 

Cannot find build req  libchmxx-devel

What package is supposed to provide that?

I assume the .la libtool files are necessary.

Comment 4 Patrice Dumas 2006-06-02 16:17:31 UTC
I forgot to push the builds for all the branches after libchmxx
was accepted... It is done now, so it should build.

The .la are necessary for kde.

Comment 5 Patrice Dumas 2006-07-05 15:53:58 UTC
kchmviewer is in extras allready, kchm doesn't seems to be very
active, and has trouble with accented entity characters in indices,
nobody seems really interested in it, maybe it is not worth pursuing 
the effort to include it in fedora extras? I am not that interrested
anymore to maintain it, given that kchmviewer seems superior. 

It seems to me that the cost of maintaining it would overcome largely
the benefits. I propose to close the request. Anybody really wanting

Comment 6 John Mahowald 2006-07-22 19:05:56 UTC
I agree that with duplicate functionality already in Extras we can hold of on
this. Closing.