Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: alpine - UW Alpine mail user agent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=249365 jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-24 17:54 EST ------- Once I got that out, I sat down to actually look over the differences between our specs. My first and foremost concern is that your tarball still contains a file that a number of Fedora developers have agreed is of fairly serious concern, namely, pico/cc5.sol, due to this: # THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T # The copyright notice above does not evidence any # actual or intended publication of such source code. Steve Hubert from upstream said it'd be removed, but until it is, it's legally dicey for us to even distribute it in the SRPM. I've re-rolled my tarball to reflect that. Beyond that, I have the following BRs you don't: aspell-devel inews openldap-devel passwd sendmail My aspell-devel BR may in fact be the erroneous way to go about it; I was merely going with the default, possibly autopilot, method to satisfy the configure script's search for a spellchecker. Your --with-spellcheck-prog=aspell may well take care of that better than my solution. (Err, yeah, I think my BR didn't even help anything. So you win there. :-) The inews BR was simply to fulfill another "not found" in the configure script. Ditto on passwd and sendmail. Your BR on /usr/sbin/sendmail will actually probably cause exim to get pulled into the build chroot, due to it being the shortest-named package providing that file. I'm not sure if that actually causes any problems. Your Require on /usr/sbin/sendmail is another good thing I didn't think of. I do believe, however, that my openldap-devel BR does enable LDAP functionality in Alpine. You may want to add that. I included /etc/pine.conf and /etc/pine.conf.fixed in my package. The former was actually generated from `alpine -conf` in the %install section, the latter is just a placeholder with some explanatory text. I think I caught some things you didn't, but you definitely caught some I flat-out screwed up on. Yay for open source collaboration. :-) I'm throwing your package into mock to see what comes out. Oh, done already. Nice. Here we go: W: alpine no-version-in-last-changelog W: alpine-debuginfo no-version-in-last-changelog See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b7d622f4bb245300199c6a33128acce5fb453213 -- you need to put the EVR of the package (without the dist tag -- in this case, 0.999-2) somewhere in the changelog entry, in one of the three formats. W: alpine-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/alpine-0.999/alpine/arg.c W: alpine-debuginfo spurious-executable-perm /usr/src/debug/alpine-0.999/pico/main.c Oh yeah, I forgot about them. I had this in my %prep: chmod -x alpine/arg.c pico/main.c Upstream said they'd fix that, IIRC. There was also (at some point) some oddness about mlock being included, but I'll need to rebuild my package to verify that. Gotta go for now, but nice job with this package! :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review