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 498688 - Please build latest libical for EPEL 4 and 5
Summary: Please build latest libical for EPEL 4 and 5
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: libical
Version: el5
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Debarshi Ray
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 498194
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2009-05-01 22:58 UTC by Robert Scheck
Modified: 2009-05-06 22:47 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: 0.43-4.el4, 0.43-4.el5
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-05-06 22:47:10 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
kevin: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robert Scheck 2009-05-01 22:58:16 UTC 
Description of problem:
Please build latest libical for EPEL 4 and 5, the 0.4x package from Rawhide.
Because libical >= 0.42 is what Zarafa requires. 

As far as I can see, only sunbird requires libical on EPEL and this only on
EPEL 5. When looking to Rawhide, building sunbird with newer libical should
work as well - adding sunbird maintainer on Cc to verify that.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
libical-0.32-1.el5

Actual results:
libical-0.32-1.el5

Expected results:
libical-0.43-4.el5
Comment 1 Robert Scheck 2009-05-01 23:07:36 UTC 
I noticed, that libical is EL-5 only currently. Is there any interest by the
libical maintainers to branch and maintain EL-4 as well?
Comment 2 Lubomir Rintel 2009-05-02 10:14:18 UTC 
I built the new version in EL-5 branch and verified that it's binary compatible with the older one for sunbird to run.

Handing the bug over to Rishi to decide about the EL-4 branch (I have not interest in it).
Comment 3 Debarshi Ray 2009-05-02 12:05:40 UTC 
Although I have no interest in EL-4, I would not object to anyone else who might want to do it. Robert, would you be interested in doing it yourself?
Comment 4 Robert Scheck 2009-05-02 12:19:04 UTC 
I verified, that sunbird is still building with newer libical in case if it
shouldn't be binary compatible with the older version.

As libical will be a dependency of my Zarafa package, I think, I'm going to
maintain it on EL-4. Lubomir, question for me is, whether you still want to
care about libical on EL-5 or not (when remembering to our yesterday IRC
talk where you've mentioned, that you're using sunbird no longer that active
as in the past)? Means in the end, that I would be willing to maintain the
libical package on EL-4 and EL-5 even. Maybe you can let me know about this.
Comment 5 Robert Scheck 2009-05-02 14:53:28 UTC 
[16:39:24] < rsc> lkundrak: I made a comment to the libical bug, maybe you can let me know.
[16:45:02] < lkundrak> rsc: so you'd like to take care of libical in EL-5? I can orphan it in pkgdb, you can take it then
[16:45:26] < rsc> lkundrak: okay, we can do that, if it's okay for you
[16:47:58] < lkundrak> rsc: I released the package. Feel free to take it. And thanks! https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/libical#FedoraEPEL5
[16:48:16] < rsc> lkundrak: Taken. Do you want me to approve watch*, commit*, approve*?
[16:49:39] < lkundrak> rsc: no need to. I don't even remember applying for it, dunno why it's there :)
[16:50:04] < rsc> lkundrak: okay, so I would remove you then. If you some day want to change it, just let me know ;)
Comment 6 Robert Scheck 2009-05-02 14:54:50 UTC 
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: libical
New Branches: EL-4
Owners: robert
Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2009-05-06 22:09:58 UTC 
cvs done.
Comment 8 Robert Scheck 2009-05-06 22:47:10 UTC 
2200 (libical): Build on target fedora-4-epel succeeded.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.