664329 – Upgrade libical

RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

Bug 664329 - Upgrade libical

Summary: Upgrade libical

Keywords:
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias:	None
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification:	Red Hat
Component:	libical
Sub Component:
Version:	6.0
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Priority:	low
Severity:	medium
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	---
Assignee:	Matthew Barnes
QA Contact:	Desktop QE
Docs Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Duplicates (1):	666843 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks:	666326 666916
TreeView+	depends on / blocked

Reported:	2010-12-19 22:11 UTC by Robert Scheck
Modified:	2017-12-06 12:28 UTC (History)
CC List:	3 users (show)
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-12-06 12:28:24 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments	(Terms of Use)

Description Robert Scheck 2010-12-19 22:11:53 UTC

Description of problem:
Please upgrade libical from 0.43 to 0.46, because RHEL 6 was already shipping
this older version of the library at the release. At 2010-08-31, libical 0.46
was already released, see e.g. bug #628893.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
libical-0.43-5.1.el6

How reproducible:
Everytime
  
Actual results:
libical-0.43-5.1.el6

Expected results:
libical-0.46-1.el6

Additional info:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=libical.git;a=blob;f=libical.spec;hb=HEAD
should be a good base for updating your *.spec file.

Comment 2 RHEL Program Management 2011-01-07 15:48:58 UTC

This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated
in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to
address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to
ask your support representative to propose this request, if
appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat
Enterprise Linux. If you would like it considered as an
exception in the current release, please ask your support
representative.

Comment 3 Milan Crha 2013-05-07 09:02:43 UTC

I'd prefer 0.46, not 0.48 (there is even 1.0 release, which was done only recently), because 0.48 has a regression, for which were necessary changes in evolution-data-server for CalDAV calendars (issue with quotes in parameter values). In any case, this update blocks bug #666326.

Comment 4 Robert Scheck 2013-05-07 10:03:52 UTC

I would prefer 1.0 - because you also have partners like Zarafa out there,
which currently need to patch libical due to slow libical updates at RHEL.

Comment 5 Milan Crha 2013-05-07 13:47:10 UTC

The only thing I'm afraid is a regression which was introduced in 0.48. If the 1.0 brings in good changes and not many API changes or anything, then I'm not particularly against 1.0, it's just about known issues in 0.48.

Comment 6 Robert Scheck 2013-05-07 14:16:53 UTC

I heard some time ago, that you Red Hat guys would internally have a nice
script or tool to compare API/ABI changes between two libraries. Is it truth
or just a myth? And if it's reality, could you run it simply?

Comment 7 Milan Crha 2013-05-09 06:09:08 UTC

I'm not aware of it personally, but you are right, I think I heard of something like that too. I think it had something to do with Fedora builds (koji) and/or fedora package updates. I do not know how much it was about soname version bumps and about real (C) API of a library.

Comment 8 Milan Crha 2013-05-13 09:12:36 UTC

*** Bug 666843 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 9 Milan Crha 2013-05-15 18:32:23 UTC

I currently cannot build libical 1.0 for Fedora (see bug #959925), and I noticed that 1.0 is not binary compatible with 0.48, thus this rebase will require rebuild of all dependent packages (not much surprise, of course, but better to have it here explicitly stated). Also note that the upstream developer sttaed that he forgot to update soname version in the release, thus either they will tell me what I do wrong in the build (I only change libical .tar.gz version in the .spec file), or they will release a fixed version, which may cover both  a build fix, and a soname version bump, or we will provide a patch for soname version bump in Fedora and RHEL. Let's see how it'll be once the Fedora bug is done.

Comment 10 Milan Crha 2013-05-16 12:37:41 UTC

Please see bug #959925 for more update on this. Rex Dieter helped me to build libical, using cmake system, thus I gave it a try. the build is fine, but they changed behaviour of icaltimezone structures, they save whole history of changes, which seems be wrong with respect of CalDAV servers (aka interoperability). For this I tend to use either 0.48, or the initially requested 0.46.

Comment 11 Milan Crha 2013-06-27 07:45:02 UTC

Once the update will happen (please consider the right version considering comment #10), the evolution packages should be rebuild against it (anyway), to have the fixes in them in action.

Comment 12 RHEL Program Management 2013-10-14 01:13:29 UTC

This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for
inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated
in the current release, Red Hat is unable to address this
request at this time.

Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if appropriate, in the next release of
Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Comment 13 Jan Kurik 2017-12-06 12:28:24 UTC

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 is in the Production 3 Phase. During the Production 3 Phase, Critical impact Security Advisories (RHSAs) and selected Urgent Priority Bug Fix Advisories (RHBAs) may be released as they become available.

The official life cycle policy can be reviewed here:

http://redhat.com/rhel/lifecycle

This issue does not meet the inclusion criteria for the Production 3 Phase and will be marked as CLOSED/WONTFIX. If this remains a critical requirement, please contact Red Hat Customer Support to request a re-evaluation of the issue, citing a clear business justification. Note that a strong business justification will be required for re-evaluation. Red Hat Customer Support can be contacted via the Red Hat Customer Portal at the following URL:

https://access.redhat.com/

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.