[Bug 249365] Review Request: alpine - UW Alpine mail user agent

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jul 24 18:34:42 UTC 2007


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





------- Additional Comments From joshuadfranklin at yahoo.com  2007-07-24 14:34 EST -------
Thanks very much for taking a look. I began with the SPEC provided at the
alpine download site, and will try to get the changes upstream. That's
also why this is release 2 instead of 1.

> - Is the Conflict tag really needed? couldn't it be replaced with a proper
> versioned Obsoletes?

I used the Conflicts tag instead of Obsoletes because there are important
differences between pine and alpine. For example, non-ASCII encoded saved
passwords will break because of the change to Unicode.  There are also many
patches to pine floating around that for political/technical reasons will
not be integrated into alpine. (I'd like to stay out of it... just search
"Mark Crispin maildir" for the gory details.) Since licensing prevents a
Fedora pine package, I have no idea what configuration users might have
and so want to warn them instead of automatically replacing their pine
install with an alpine that could break their configuration. (It is also
possible to run pine and alpine concurrently, but the names of /usr/bin/pico
and /usr/bin/pilot conflict.)

> Quick glance over the spec:
> - Ditch the vendor and packager tags; fedora build system will fill in the

Done.

> - Are you sure that the Description tag needs the second and third paragraph?

Well, I don't think a little more description hurts anything. The 2nd paragraph
is for non-technical users, and the 3rd for technical. I see that mutt has a
description similar to the 2nd paragraph:
"You should install mutt if you have used it in the past and you prefer
it, or if you are new to mail programs and have not decided which one
you are going to use."


> - Ditch the '[ "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT" != "/" ] &&' part from %clean and %install. It

Done.

> - It would be wiser to use the 4 arguments form of %defattr

OK, done.

> - I have to recheck that, but I think Applications/Mail does not seem to be a
> standard group

I changed it to "Applications/Internet" which is the same at mutt.

> - Apache 2.0 does not seem to be the proper value for the license tag (according
> to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apache2.0.php I guess it should be "Apache
> License, Version 2.0")

I looks like it's been standardized on "Apache Software License":
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2006-June/msg00072.html
I guess you only have to specify version if it's 1.1 or 1.0.

Here's a couple examples I found:
rpm -qi httpd tomcat5-jsp-2.0-api|grep License
Size        : 2572641                          License: Apache Software License
Size        : 143766                           License: Apache Software License


> - last but not least, mock build fails with:

OK, fixed. I was building on my existing RHEL4 build system which doesn't
have mock (yet?), but now I set up a Fedora 7 build system and used mock.
Building the autocache is wicked slow, maybe that could be mirrored.

New SPEC and SRPM are at the same places:

spec URL: http://staff.washington.edu/joshuadf/alpine/alpine.spec
SRPM URL: http://staff.washington.edu/joshuadf/alpine/alpine-0.999-2.src.rpm

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list