Spec URL: http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/evolution-mapi.spec SRPM URL: http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/evolution-mapi-0.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This is a new extension for Evolution that allows it to interact with accounts on Microsoft Exchange 2007 servers by using the Messaging Application Programming Interface (MAPI).
This fails to build for me on rawhide; it needs openchange-devel which is not available.
rpmlint output when run on the resulting RPMs: evolution-mapi.i386: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libexchangemapi-1.0.so.0.0.0 evolution-mapi.i386: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libexchangemapi-1.0.so.0.0.0 evolution-mapi.i386: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/evolution-mapi-0.1/NEWS evolution-mapi.i386: E: no-changelogname-tag evolution-mapi-debuginfo.i386: E: no-changelogname-tag evolution-mapi-devel.i386: W: no-documentation evolution-mapi-devel.i386: E: no-changelogname-tag 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings. the no-changelogname-tag errors seem to be fixed in the spec file linked above, but not in the spec file that is included in the SRPM.
(In reply to comment #1) > This fails to build for me on rawhide; it needs openchange-devel which is not > available. Jason, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OpenChange. OpenChange and Samba4 are also under review to support this.
Then could you perhaps set the ticket dependencies properly so that something indicates that this isn't actually reviewable now?
evolution-mapi saw its first formal release today: 0.25.3. Think I got the rpmlint issues from comment #2 worked out as well. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/evolution-mapi.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/evolution-mapi-0.25.3-1.fc10.src.rpm
Update for 0.25.4, which introduces translations: http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/evolution-mapi.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/evolution-mapi-0.25.4-1.fc10.src.rpm
Update for 0.25.5. No changes to packaging. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/evolution-mapi.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/evolution-mapi-0.25.5-1.fc10.src.rpm
Update for 0.25.90. No changes to packaging. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/evolution-mapi.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/evolution-mapi-0.25.90-1.fc10.src.rpm
Update for 0.25.91. No changes to packaging. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/evolution-mapi.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/evolution-mapi-0.25.91-1.fc10.src.rpm
Update adds some missing BuildRequires. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/evolution-mapi.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/evolution-mapi-0.25.91-2.fc10.src.rpm
Matthew - where can I report problems with the evolution-mapi implementation (not the package)?
Oded: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=evolution-mapi
Builds ok in mock rpmlint output: evolution-mapi-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Loooking around the provides and requires a bit, I think it would be good to have explicit requires against evolution and e-d-s (since they own /usr/lib/evolution/2.26/plugins and /usr/lib/evolution-data-server-1.2/extension). They _are_ currently pulled in by library dependencies, but thats not very obvious (evo seems to get pulled in via libeutil ?)
formal review package name: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: ok license: ok package name: ok spec file name: ok packaging guidelines: ok license: ok license field/file: the license field says GPLv2+, but COPYING is GPLv3. What gives ? spec language: ok spec legible: ok upstream sources: ok buildable: ok excludearch: ok build deps: ok locale handling: ok, but I don't know what that extra grep business is about. Shouldn't be necessary ? ldconfig: ok relocatable: ok directory ownership: ok, but see earlier comment about deps duplicate files: ok permissions: ok %clean: ok macro use: ok permissible content: ok large docs: ok %doc content: ok header files: ok static libs: ok pkgconfig files: ok shared libs: ok devel dep: ok libtool archives: ok gui apps: ok file ownership: ok %install: ok utf8 filenames: ok summary: - clarify license - consider getting rid of grep business around %find_lang - consider adding explicit deps for evo/eds
Got clarification from upstream that the correct license is LGPLv2+ and the COPYING file is apparently wrong (and so is my spec file). But there's also a COPYING.LGPL2 and COPYING.LGPL3 in the SVN repo which isn't included in the tarball. *confusion* Novell promised to clarify the license in the next release. So can we mark it as the -intended- license, and I'll make sure it gets fixed? The grep thing I must have copy-n-pasted from another package. It's gone now. http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SPECS/evolution-mapi.spec http://mbarnes.fedorapeople.org/mapi/SRPMS/evolution-mapi-0.25.91-3.fc10.src.rpm
> Novell promised to clarify the license in the next release. So can we mark it > as the -intended- license, and I'll make sure it gets fixed? Sounds good enough to me. And ship no license file then, instead of the wrong license file, I guess. Approved.
Thanks again for the reviews.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: evolution-mapi Short Description: Exchange 2007 support for Evolution Owners: mbarnes Branches: InitialCC:
cvs done.
Package built. Closing review. http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/evolution-mapi/