[Pkg-citadel-devel] Libical and Osmo - Updating rpm for Fedora 10 release

[w.goesgens]

Hy everyone, 

Libical doesn't cary its own timezone database by default anymore, since most
linux distributions also have this in their timezone package.

see the attached patch which fixes it on debian. 
>Fr Jul 18 2008 22:30:53 CEST von Jeff Perry an pasp at users.sourceforge.net 
>Betreff: Re: Libical and Osmo - Updating rpm for Fedora 10 release
>
>2nd try - the mail to folks at sourceforge failed due to a mail server
>problem on my side.
>
>On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 16:19 -0400, Jeff Perry wrote:
>
>>> Hi Tomasz Maka and Piotr Maka (and others)
>>>
>>> I have been updating the rpm package for libical (rishi is the official
>>> maintainer at the moment - though I hope to be taking responsibility for
>>> it soon) for release with Fedora 10.
>>>
>>> My research on users of the libical package shows that your application
>>> Osmo relies on libical
>>>
>>> There is a known issue with osmo apparently (at least known to the
>>> debian folks) regarding failing to find libical (despite building with
>>> it)  See: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=464710
>>> Libical versions 0.30, 0.31 and 0.23 all seem to have the same problem.
>>>
>>> At the moment the Osmo package declares that it depends on libical but
>>> does not mention any specific version. As a result, it compiles fine but
>>> the calls made by it do not exist in the library since the API has
>>> changed since Osmo was written. This dependency is incorrect and can be
>>> fixed in one of two ways: 1) updating Osmo to use the new apis or 2)
>>> removing the "dependency" by forking your own older copy of libical and
>>> updating the spec file to not mention needing libical.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the simplest path is to remove the dependency in the osmo rpm.
>>> It won't break things any further than they are now (correct me if I'm
>>> wrong here) and would allow osmo the leisure to update as time permits
>>> and at the same time allow libical packaging to proceed. (Ok it's a bit
>>> wierd to ship a library package that would then have no users - but that
>>> may change by Fedora release)
>>>
>>> I know that the libical developers really would like to see code stop
>>> forking and go back to relying on their code as the official version.
>>> I agree with this. In addition there is noise from the Evolution project
>>> that they are interested in doing a merge-back of their patches.
>>>
>>> QUESTION: What should be done about this? Any thoughts...
>>>
>>> Now I'm going to go back to packaging and leave the code sorting to
>>> others.
>>>
>>> The SVN log for Osmo shows David as the most recent submitter, so I have
>>> added him to the CC on this note. Other people on the CC line include
>>> the co-maintainers of the libical code and rishi (mentioned earlier)
>>>
>>> --Jeff
>>>
>>

>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-citadel-devel/attachments/20091102/07bdb64a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: fix_osmo_TZConfig.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 359 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-citadel-devel/attachments/20091102/07bdb64a/attachment.diff>