sylpheed plugins for F16

[Ranjan Maitra]

Hi,

I have a question with regard to the sylpheed installation in F16. I
was wondering where the plugins are? (Specifically, the  According to
the source file, the plugins are to be installed by make install-plugin,
however the created .so file(s) do not appear to be there. Does that
mean that the rpm was created without using this? If so, is this
something that should be bugzilla'd?

Many thanks and best wishes,
Ranjan

[Ranjan Maitra]

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:34:19 +0100 Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:

>  Am Samstag, den 28.01.2012, 11:27 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
>  > On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:24:38 -0600, RM (Ranjan) wrote:
>  > 
>  > > Hi,
>  > > 
>  > > I have a question with regard to the sylpheed installation in F16. I
>  > > was wondering where the plugins are? (Specifically, the  According to
>  > > the source file, the plugins are to be installed by make install-plugin,
>  > > however the created .so file(s) do not appear to be there. Does that
>  > > mean that the rpm was created without using this? If so, is this
>  > > something that should be bugzilla'd?
>  > 
>  > That could be true. You seem to be familiar enough with Sylpheed
>  > to file a bug report: http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/sylpheed
>  > 
>  > In the build log found here,
>  >   http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=262597
>  > one can observe how it builds an "attachment_tool.so" plugin, but
>  > doesn't install it during "make install". Further, on x86_64 it
> builds
>  > the plugin with -DPLUGINDIR=\""/usr/lib/sylpheed/plugins"\  which
>  > isn't correct. The plugin directory entry is not included in the
>  > package either. If a separate "make install-plugin" is needed, that
>  > could be a packaging bug indeed.
>  
>  Good catch, Michael!
>  
>  I know I had looked into this earlier but decided to not do it because
>  by that time there only was the 'test' plugin.
>  
>  I have issued an update with plugins now. Find it at
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sylpheed-3.2.0-0.3.beta5.fc16
>  
>  Regards,
>  Christoph 
Thanks, Christoph! I look forward to using the plugin.

Ranjan

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Samstag, den 28.01.2012, 11:27 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
>  On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:24:38 -0600, RM (Ranjan) wrote:
>  
>  > Hi,
>  > 
>  > I have a question with regard to the sylpheed installation in F16. I
>  > was wondering where the plugins are? (Specifically, the  According to
>  > the source file, the plugins are to be installed by make install-plugin,
>  > however the created .so file(s) do not appear to be there. Does that
>  > mean that the rpm was created without using this? If so, is this
>  > something that should be bugzilla'd?
>  
>  That could be true. You seem to be familiar enough with Sylpheed
>  to file a bug report: http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/sylpheed
>  
>  In the build log found here,
>    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=262597
>  one can observe how it builds an "attachment_tool.so" plugin, but
>  doesn't install it during "make install". Further, on x86_64 it builds
>  the plugin with -DPLUGINDIR=\""/usr/lib/sylpheed/plugins"\  which
>  isn't correct. The plugin directory entry is not included in the
>  package either. If a separate "make install-plugin" is needed, that
>  could be a packaging bug indeed. 
Good catch, Michael!

I know I had looked into this earlier but decided to not do it because
by that time there only was the 'test' plugin.

I have issued an update with plugins now. Find it at
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/sylpheed-3.2.0-0.3.beta5.fc16

Regards,
Christoph

[Michael Schwendt]

On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:24:38 -0600, RM (Ranjan) wrote:

>  Hi,
>  
>  I have a question with regard to the sylpheed installation in F16. I
>  was wondering where the plugins are? (Specifically, the  According to
>  the source file, the plugins are to be installed by make install-plugin,
>  however the created .so file(s) do not appear to be there. Does that
>  mean that the rpm was created without using this? If so, is this
>  something that should be bugzilla'd? 
That could be true. You seem to be familiar enough with Sylpheed
to file a bug report: http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/sylpheed

In the build log found here,
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=262597
one can observe how it builds an "attachment_tool.so" plugin, but
doesn't install it during "make install". Further, on x86_64 it builds
the plugin with -DPLUGINDIR=\""/usr/lib/sylpheed/plugins"\  which
isn't correct. The plugin directory entry is not included in the
package either. If a separate "make install-plugin" is needed, that
could be a packaging bug indeed.