https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185665
Bug ID: 1185665 Summary: Review Request: muttprint - pretty printing of mails for mutt (and other mailers) Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: madam@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~obnox/rpms/muttprint/0.73/1.fc22/muttprint.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~obnox/rpms/muttprint/0.73/1.fc22/muttprint-0.73-1.... Description: Pretty printing of mails with mutt. Fedora Account System Username: obnox
copr: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/obnox/muttprint/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185665
--- Comment #1 from Michael Adam madam@redhat.com --- Do I need to do anything special for this initial review in order to also get the package to fc21? Or can this be done after the initial review for rawhide?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185665
Florian "der-flo" Lehner dev@der-flo.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dev@der-flo.net
--- Comment #2 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner dev@der-flo.net --- Hi Michael!
After the package is approved, you can send an SCM Request, which can contain f21. For more about this, please take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
There are a few things regarding the .spec:
[ ] Why don't you use the source directly from sourceforge? You can easily do this by following the instructions on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#So...
[ ] Please document your patches. What are they doing and why?
[ ] What about the license of BabyTuX?
Cheers, Florian
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185665
--- Comment #3 from Michael Adam madam@redhat.com --- Hi Folorian,
(In reply to Florian "der-flo" Lehner from comment #2)
After the package is approved, you can send an SCM Request, which can contain f21. For more about this, please take a look at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
Thanks! I have meanwhile done it for another packages and am familiar with the procedure..
There are a few things regarding the .spec:
[ ] Why don't you use the source directly from sourceforge? You can easily do this by following the instructions on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/ SourceURL#Sourceforge.net
Thanks for the hint! That url was just not obvious from sourceforge itself... ==> fixed that, going to post an update soon.
[ ] Please document your patches. What are they doing and why?
==> gonna follow up with that fixed
[ ] What about the license of BabyTuX?
==> gonna follow up on that
Cheers, Florian
Thanks for your review/comments!
Stay tuned - Michael
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185665
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #4 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Ping?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185665
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Michael, are you still interested in packaging this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185665
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(madam@redhat.com)
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org