Bug 458180
| Summary: | Review Request: mailutils - Collection of GNU mail-related utilities | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rakesh Pandit <rpandit> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, herrold, lkundrak, notting, opensource, pertusus, praiskup, rpandit |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-03-17 11:15:55 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Rakesh Pandit
2008-08-06 21:24:29 UTC
Instead of the massive amount of %defines at the beginning of the spec, you can afaik use macros like
%bcond_with
%bcond_without
It is documented in
/usr/lib/rpm/macros
Afaics, every subpackage requires the -libs and the -docs subpackage and the -docs subpackage. The -docs subpackage does not seem to be very big, therefore imho it should be merged into the -libs package.
This line should be removed from the spec:
#rm %{_datadir}/guile/site/mailutils/guile-procedures.txt
Thanks, Fixed SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/mailutils.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/mailutils-1.2-3.fc9.src.rpm Till if free sometime ... you may like to help with an unofficial detailed review(if not official) to get this going. Just a request :-) Anyone interested to review this one ? It is long pending, thanks *** Bug 244346 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I am interested in reviewing it, but I am very short on time these days. In the mean time, you can have a look at the previous submisison I just marked as a duplicate of this one, and pick what makes sense. (In reply to comment #6) > In the mean time, you can have a look at the previous submisison I just > marked as a duplicate of this one, and pick what makes sense. Scratch it, looks like you already used Lubomir last spec to start with... yes, thanks for updating about old review. :-) I have build on that review already after requesting to Lubomir to give his latest spec Thanks The conditionals are not used correctly. It should be along bcond_with ltdl and then in the configure invocation conditionals should be used. Also it seems to me that these should be mostly bcond_without since in the default case you want these features to be used. Aah! It slipped out of my mind. I will get back to it this weekend, Patrice thanks for reminding, this was important. Please clear the whiteboard when this is ready for a review. I am not interested taking it up soon. Will take it up sometime again if not taken up by somebody before me. I am preparing a package, does someone still have the patch mentioned in the spec? (In reply to comment #13) > I am preparing a package, does someone still have the patch mentioned in the > spec? Hi Till, how this continues? Are you still interested in packaging? Pavel (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > I am preparing a package, does someone still have the patch mentioned in the > > spec? > > Hi Till, how this continues? Are you still interested in packaging? No, I do not need it anymore. |