Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 218360
Review Request: evolution-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin for removing duplicate mails
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:50 EST
Spec URL: http://hircus.org/fedora/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates.spec
SRPM URL: http://hircus.org/fedora/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates-0.0.2-1.src.rpm
A plugin that checks selected e-mails for duplicates and remove them.
You need to Add perl-XML-Parser as BR in SPEC.
Thanks. Here are the updated files:
I normally test them using mock, but sometimes (like now) mock fails. Here on
x86_64 it's saying it could not find evolution-plugin-2.8 (despite me manually
setting PKG_CONFIG_PATH). Normally the package builds fine on the build server,
Testing now with a 32-bit mock buildroot.
Same problem with 32-bit mock, it's probably a mock-specific problem that can be
ignored (evolution-devel and pkgconfig is installed, so that test should *not* fail)
Incidentally, I'm going to rename this to evolution-remove-duplicates, since the
other evolution plugin I'm aware of, that adds bogofilter support, is just
waiting for new modications.
Yes package is not building in mock.
It should build in mock to proceed Review.
Rex Dieter pointed out that the evolution-plugin-2.8.pc in turn depends on
another .pc whose package was not required by evolution-devel . I've added a
temporary BR on e-d-s-devel for now, that can be removed once that packaging bug
Nice. Mock build is successfully building package.
Will post review later on.
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS.
+ source files match upstream.
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible. License text included in package.
+ %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required.
+ %doc does not affect runtime.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
Changed summary for tracking purposes.