Bug 660131

Summary: Review Request: mu - mu is a collection of utilties for indexing and searching Maildirs
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Andy Bailey <bailey>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, notting
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: 2010-12-15 11:01:19 EST Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Andy Bailey 2010-12-05 13:37:18 EST
Spec URL: https://github.com/GooseYArd/rpm/raw/master/SPECS/mu.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/GooseYArd/rpm/raw/master/SRPMS/mu-0.9.11.fc14.src.rpm
Description: mu is a set of tools for dealing with Maildirs and the e-mail messages in them.

This is my first package, so I'm hunting for a sponsor.

A couple of notes about the spec, as you can see from the sed commands, there's a libtool/rpath issue in the package. I read that autoreconfing is frowned upon, so this solution seems to work reasonably well. I've been working with the upstream author already on a few other configure.ac changes to help building on fc-14, so I suspect we'll be able to eliminate this kludge within an upstream release or two.

Thanks!
Comment 1 Andy Bailey 2010-12-05 13:40:13 EST
one more thing- the short name worries me a little- the author uses "mu0" at google code (I'm guessing maybe theres a minimum length?), but the project is also referred to as "mu-tools" in a few places, so I think there's an alternative if "mu" doesn't work for Fedora packaging.
Comment 2 Andy Bailey 2010-12-07 14:35:34 EST
user tibbs on #fedora-devel suggested that I review some other pendingreview packages to help secure a sponsorship of this one. I found a few interesting ones that I'll note here. First, 611372.
Comment 3 Andy Bailey 2010-12-08 12:05:14 EST
I'll also work on 634025.
Comment 4 Andy Bailey 2010-12-15 11:01:19 EST
Withdrawing submission, I think simply having a working spec file satisfies my needs. It'll be available at the same location if an established maintainer would like to create a new package later.