Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 458180
Review Request: mailutils - Collection of GNU mail-related utilities
Last modified: 2013-02-20 04:11:44 EST
Mailutils is a GNU implementation of various mail-handling utilities.
This package offers basic Mailutils tools including SMTP and local
Instead of the massive amount of %defines at the beginning of the spec, you can afaik use macros like
It is documented in
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:
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
The conditionals are not used correctly. It should be along
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
Hi Till, how this continues? Are you still interested in packaging?
(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.