[Bug 434727] Review Request: libpst - utilities to convert Outlook .pst files to other formats

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: libpst - utilities to convert Outlook .pst files to other formats


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434727





------- Additional Comments From carl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  2008-03-05 22:25 EST -------
Delay caused by work on 0.6.8 with another conversion utility. This now requires
ImageMagick and gd.

The libpst.spec <http://www.five-ten-sg.com/libpst/packages/libpst.spec> is
built via ./configure (which we need to run to get 'make distcheck' anyway) from
libpst.spec.in <http://www.five-ten-sg.com/libpst/packages/libpst.spec.in>. 

The packaging guidelines say "Every time you make changes, that is, whenever you
increment the E-V-R of a package, add a changelog entry.". The version is
contained in the autoconf configure.in, so when we bump that and rebuild, we
automatically get a new libpst.spec with a new version number. But since we
don't generally update the libpst.spec.in, that results in no change log entry
in libpst.spec. Do you want us to manually add changelog entries in
libpst.spec.in for every version bump in configure.in, even though the packaging
is not really changing? I can see advantages to both yes and no answers.

%files
%doc AUTHORS COPYING ChangeLog NEWS README

That caused problems, since the %doc seems to remove the documentation
directory, which has already been populated by autoconf with html help files. My
solution is to have autoconf also handle those GNU standard files, and then just
reference 

%files
%docdir %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}
%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}

with the documentation content fully populated by autoconf make install.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]