Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: libqmf - Qt Messaging Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Summary: Review Request: libqmf - Qt Messaging Framework Product: Fedora Version: 14 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: supercyper1@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Description:
The Qt Messaging Framework, QMF, consists of a C++ library and daemon server process that can be used to build email clients, and more generally software that interacts with email and mail servers.
SPEC: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338197/1/libqmf.spec SRPM: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1338197/1/libqmf-1.0-0.1.2010w23.fc13.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #1 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-08-21 23:28:21 EDT --- *** Bug 617610 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |berrange@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com 2010-08-26 10:45:00 EDT --- I'm not sure what to suggest as an alternative, but IMHO "libqmf" is a rather misleading/confusing name for this package.
- This proposed 'libqmf' doesn't appear to contain any libqmf.so - Fedora already has a 'qmf' RPM that does provide a libqmf.so
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #3 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-08-26 10:57:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
I'm not sure what to suggest as an alternative, but IMHO "libqmf" is a rather misleading/confusing name for this package.
- This proposed 'libqmf' doesn't appear to contain any libqmf.so
- Fedora already has a 'qmf' RPM that does provide a libqmf.so
This is a git snapshot actually, no formal tarball available currently. I also doubt the pkgname, I sent a private mail to a maintainer of qmf, but haven't got any response yet.
I use libqmf as the pkgname mainly because the package install api docs to %{_docdir}/libqmf-doc.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #4 from Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com 2010-08-26 11:20:34 EDT --- That's good, if they've not done any formal upstream release yet, then its definitely worth encouraging them to change the naming to avoid this obvious namespace clash.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #5 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-08-26 11:48:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
That's good, if they've not done any formal upstream release yet, then its definitely worth encouraging them to change the naming to avoid this obvious namespace clash.
I think we have two choice:
1.Rename fedora qmf rpm to libqmf, then use qmf for this package(actually all other distributions use qmf for this package)
2. Keep fedora qmf rpm, then persuade Nokia to name this package as libqmf.
Currently, I can't other reasonable name for this package. FYI, upstream tend to call this package as qmf.
See http://qt.gitorious.org/qt-labs/messagingframework/blobs/master/README
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org
--- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler kevin@tigcc.ticalc.org 2010-08-26 14:07:28 EDT --- We could call it qt-qmf or something.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-12-02 10:28:15 EST --- What is the status of this package?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |661400
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter@math.unl.edu Blocks| |656997(kde-reviews)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2010-12-09 11:35:30 EST --- We're trying to negotiate the qmf namespace clash with qpid-cpp maintainers (that package currently produces subpkgs named qmf and qmf-devel).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jreznik@redhat.com
--- Comment #9 from Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com 2010-12-10 08:13:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #8)
We're trying to negotiate the qmf namespace clash with qpid-cpp maintainers (that package currently produces subpkgs named qmf and qmf-devel).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661736
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |NotReady
--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-12-13 10:03:49 EST --- I guess I'll mark this as not being ready; please clear the whiteboard if the issue is resolved and this review can progress.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #11 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2011-01-14 10:36:56 EST --- Let's just go with qt-qmf here, and not block indefinitely waiting on bug #661736
ok?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #12 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2011-01-14 10:39:32 EST --- Just took a peek at the latest .spec here, and noticed BuildRequires: libacccounts-qt-devel where's this come from?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #13 from Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com 2011-01-14 11:37:00 EST --- (In reply to comment #11)
Let's just go with qt-qmf here, and not block indefinitely waiting on bug #661736
ok?
ok for me
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #14 from Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com 2011-01-14 11:39:43 EST --- (In reply to comment #12)
Just took a peek at the latest .spec here, and noticed BuildRequires: libacccounts-qt-devel where's this come from?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=617592
seems to be built only for rawhide - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10789
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |617592
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #15 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2011-01-15 03:26:47 EST --- (In reply to comment #11)
Let's just go with qt-qmf here, and not block indefinitely waiting on bug #661736
ok?
OK for me also, maybe we can try to persuade upstream to rename this package to qt-qmf as well.
Mailing list: http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt-qmf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Eric Springer erikina@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erikina@gmail.com
--- Comment #16 from Eric Springer erikina@gmail.com 2011-03-14 03:10:57 EDT --- [Upstream QMF developer here]
Just to add to the confusion:
There's two forks of QMF: * http://qt.gitorious.org/qt-labs/messagingframework (What I call Qt-QMF) * http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-middleware/messagingframework (What I call Meego-QMF)
Meego-QMF is rebased on a particular version commit of Qt-QMF (generally the weekly tags, but w/e suits their schedule) along with their set of commits (That adds stuff like libaccounts and tracker integration).
Going forward, I'd like to see this consolidated into a single library -- but for the time being that's not practical.
But since you're packaging Meego-QMF, which is fine -- but calling it Qt-QMF would only add to the confusion. So maybe meego-qmf is a better name?
Regards, Eric
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #17 from Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com 2011-05-13 12:28:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16)
[Upstream QMF developer here]
Just to add to the confusion:
There's two forks of QMF:
- http://qt.gitorious.org/qt-labs/messagingframework (What I call Qt-QMF)
- http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-middleware/messagingframework (What I call
Meego-QMF)
Meego-QMF is rebased on a particular version commit of Qt-QMF (generally the weekly tags, but w/e suits their schedule) along with their set of commits (That adds stuff like libaccounts and tracker integration).
Going forward, I'd like to see this consolidated into a single library -- but for the time being that's not practical.
But since you're packaging Meego-QMF, which is fine -- but calling it Qt-QMF would only add to the confusion. So maybe meego-qmf is a better name?
Regards, Eric
Hi Eric! Thanks for clarification. So meego-qmf should be compatible with qt-qmf? If so, we can ship meego-qmf as it adds some stuff and we can't have two nearly exactly same conflicting libraries. The question here is - rename it to meego-qt and after it's consolidated to one library move to qt-qmf? It's maybe even a little bit more confusing :(
Guys, what do you thing? QMF is an optional dep now for a few packages, so we should have it packaged...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #18 from Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com 2011-05-17 11:46:52 EDT --- Chen, are you still around and interested in this package review? Otherwise I can take care about it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |libqmf
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|14 |rawhide
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2011-06-09 12:18:38 EDT --- Looks like we'll be needing this sooner rather than later, as it's need by PyQtMobility which I'm working on packaging now.
I'll get to work on a newer build based on: http://repo.meego.com/MeeGo/builds/trunk/latest/repos/oss/source/qmf-1.0.7~2...
anyone feel free to chime in and/or help, if you've got anything to add.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #20 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2011-06-09 12:35:15 EDT --- Hrm, that rpm uses qt-qmf it seems: * Fri Mar 25 2011 Fathi Boudra fathi.boudra@nokia.com - 1.0.7~2011w11 - Update to 1.0.7~2011w11 and switch to upstream QMF - Update URL
with URL: http://qt.gitorious.org/qt-labs/messagingframework
Now I'm confused on which one we should use. :( oh well, I'll continue work on sync'ing with the srp rom repo.meego.com, and we'll go from there.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #21 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2011-06-09 16:53:35 EDT --- Well, so much for that qmf-1.0 doesn't seem to satisfy build requirements for either qt-mobility-1.2.x or PYQtMobility, trying a git snapshot of http://meego.gitorious.org/meego-middleware/messagingframework now.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #22 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2011-06-09 17:10:03 EDT --- and, seems meego-qmf doesn't build, seemingly because fedora's libaccounts-qt-0.31-4.fc15.x86_64 is too old. :(
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #23 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2011-06-09 17:11:21 EDT --- Pardon one minor rant, lack of qt/meego upstream releases or clear (versioned!) dependencies make resolving this more that a little frustrating. :(
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
--- Comment #24 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2011-06-09 17:25:42 EDT --- (sorry for the multiple posts) in case it's useful for anyone, http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/qmf/ currently includes qt-qmf-1.0.7-1.1011w13.fc15.src.rpm my attempt at making an updated qmf-1.0.x rpm per comment #19
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks| |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution| |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2011-11-28 09:58:44
--- Comment #25 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2011-11-28 09:58:44 EST --- marking dead, reporter hasn't responded for quite awhile.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626122
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|656997(kde-reviews) |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla