Some follow ups
While registering the package of SUNWgmime, we found that there was 
already one with the same name existing in JDS gate. We'd have to modify 
the package name to be "SUNWlibgmime".
If there's no objections, I'll go ahead modifying the case with the 
following lines

        SUNWgmime                         Uncommitted   package Name
        SUNWgmime-devel                   Uncommitted   dev package Name

Replaced by

        SUNWlibgmime                      Uncommitted   package Name
        SUNWlibgmime-devel                Uncommitted   dev package Name

--Irene
Irene Huang wrote:
> Closing as approved.
>
> Updated spec available at 
> http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/067/specv2.txt
>
> --Irene
> Brian Cameron wrote:
>>
>> Irene:
>>
>> I don't have any further issues.  However, considering the number
>> of changes to the spec, I think it would  make sense to update the
>> spec with these changes?
>>
>>> here's the issue list raised in this thread (with answer).
>>> Why is Gmime set to be "Volatile" Jerry: Currently in the community, 
>>> incompatible changes are introduced
>>> sometimes. It cannot be marked as "Uncommitted" or "higher"
>>>
>>> .pc files should be "Uncommitted"
>>> Jerry: Yes, spec updated
>>>
>>> Brian Cameron-01: What's the relationship between GMime and the
>>> freedesktop MIME specification. Jerry: no relationship.
>>
>> That isn't true.  There is an obvious relationship - they both relate
>> to MIME types.  The answer Jerry gave to this question was better:
>>
>>   gmime is a library to parse mime (mail) and mbox file,
>>   gnome-mime-data, freedesktop mime spec are about file types.
>>
>>   Currently, there are several application that use gmime.
>>
>>   Balsa ( a mail client for gnome), Pan ( a newsreader), DBMail( a group
>>   of programs that enable the possiblilty of storing and retrieving mail
>>   messages from a database) Beagle (for indexing email) tracker
>>   (indexing email)
>>
>> I think this answer could go into section 4.1 to make the case more
>> clear.
>>
>> Brian
>


Reply via email to