Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 218360 - Review Request: evolution-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin for removing duplicate mails
Summary: Review Request: evolution-remove-duplicates - Evolution plugin for removing d...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-12-04 20:45 UTC by Michel Alexandre Salim
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-12-11 03:42:23 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michel Alexandre Salim 2006-12-04 20:45:50 UTC 
Spec URL: http://hircus.org/fedora/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates.spec
SRPM URL: http://hircus.org/fedora/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates-0.0.2-1.src.rpm
Description:
A plugin that checks selected e-mails for duplicates and remove them.
Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-12-05 04:59:53 UTC 
You need to Add perl-XML-Parser as BR in SPEC.
Comment 2 Michel Alexandre Salim 2006-12-05 18:26:08 UTC 
Thanks. Here are the updated files:

Spec URL:
http://hircus.org/fedora/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates.spec
SRPM URL:
http://hircus.org/fedora/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates-0.0.2-2.src.rpm

I normally test them using mock, but sometimes (like now) mock fails. Here on
x86_64 it's saying it could not find evolution-plugin-2.8 (despite me manually
setting PKG_CONFIG_PATH). Normally the package builds fine on the build server,
though.

Testing now with a 32-bit mock buildroot.
Comment 3 Michel Alexandre Salim 2006-12-06 20:25:22 UTC 
Same problem with 32-bit mock, it's probably a mock-specific problem that can be
ignored (evolution-devel and pkgconfig is installed, so that test should *not* fail)

Incidentally, I'm going to rename this to evolution-remove-duplicates, since the
other evolution plugin I'm aware of, that adds bogofilter support, is just
called evolution-bogofilter.
Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-12-07 07:46:19 UTC 
waiting for new modications.
Yes package is not building in mock.
It should build in mock to proceed Review.
Comment 5 Michel Alexandre Salim 2006-12-08 03:51:57 UTC 
http://hircus.org/fedora/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates/evolution-remove-duplicates.spec
http://hircus.org/fedora/evolution-plugin-remove-duplicates/evolution-remove-duplicates-0.0.2-3.src.rpm

Rex Dieter pointed out that the evolution-plugin-2.8.pc in turn depends on
another .pc whose package was not required by evolution-devel . I've added a
temporary BR on e-d-s-devel for now, that can be removed once that packaging bug
is fixed.
Comment 6 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-12-09 01:54:42 UTC 
Nice. Mock build is successfully building package.
working fine.
Will post review later on.
Comment 7 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-12-10 07:41:33 UTC 
Review:
+ package builds in mock (development i386).
+ rpmlint is silent for SRPM and RPMS.
+ source files match upstream.
5ed885b9dd6bc69df2978be8cc6dc089  remove-duplicates-plugin-0.0.2.tar.gz
+ package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
+ specfile is properly named, is cleanly written
+ Spec file is written in American English.
+ Spec file is legible.
+ dist tag is present.
+ build root is correct.
+ license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
+ %doc is small; no -doc subpackage required.
+ %doc does not affect runtime.
+ BuildRequires are proper.
+ %clean is present.
+ package installed properly.
+ Macro use appears rather consistent.
+ Package contains code, not content.
+ no headers or static libraries.
+ no .pc file present.
+ no -devel subpackage exists
+ no .la files.
+ no translations are available
+ Dose owns the directories it creates.
+ no duplicates in %files.
+ file permissions are appropriate.
APPROVED.
Comment 8 Kevin Fenzi 2006-12-22 03:19:46 UTC 
Changed summary for tracking purposes.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.