[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zbys...@in.waw.pl
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #29 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
rpmlint is quite helpful:
sylfilter.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libsylfilter.so

.so is packaged in both subpackages. It should be present only in the -devel
supbackage. Common trick is to %{_libdir}/libsylfilter.so.* in the main
subpackage.

sylfilter-devel.i686: W: tag-in-description C Requires:
sylfilter-devel.i686: W: tag-in-description C Requires:
You should move the Requires tag above %description because they're being
interpreted as the part of the text.

/usr/lib/libsylfilter.la should be removed after installation
[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#StaticLibraries].

I looked over all the other comments, and it seems everything that other
reviews noted was fixed. It looks very clean now.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #28 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
Any news on this review? Thanks!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #27 from Dan Horák  ---
The sylpheed-libs package has been introduced in sylpheed-3.4.3-3.fc24

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl



--- Comment #26 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #17)
> (In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #16)
> > (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #15)
> > > Open issues with *-2:
> > > * [MUSTFIX] Not building against external sylpheed
> > > - Missing "BuildRequires: sylpheed-devel"
> > > - Pass --with-libsylph=sylpheed instead of --with-libsylph=builtin
> > >   to %configure
> > 
> > Why is this a MUSTFIX?
> To put it bluntly: because bundling is harmful, stupid and dumb.
> 
> Less bluntly: bundling renders packages unmaintainable, vulnerable and
> causes bloat.

To expand a bit on this, because Ranjan is a new packager, and is most likely
not aware of the long history of this topic ;):

Bundling used to be totally forbidden, with exceptions reluctantly granted
by the Fedora Packaging Committee. This policy was recently relaxed [1,2],
but bundling is still best avoided [3]. When the bundled library is already
packaged, it is required to use the system-wide copy:
"All packages whose upstreams allow them to be built against system libraries
must be built against system libraries."

The old policy [4] explains why bundling is bad. Please note that those
considerations are still valid, and the policy was only relaxed because
people were tired of fighting with unreasonable upstreams and massive
amounts of bundled code in some projects.

[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1483
[2] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1491
[3]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication_of_system_libraries
[4]
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries=406058

> > Building against sylpheed will mean requiring the
> > package for installation. It reduces the package size from 91k to 46k which
> > is not much, however, requiring sylpheed for someone who does not intend to
> > use sylpheed for this purpose would increase his/her pulled-in RPM size by
> > 7.8M (which is what sylpheed's RPM is).
> Size-wise bundling causes bloat because each statically linked packages
> re-adds the same libraries over and over again.

With today's disks, extra 8MB in files on disk is really unimportant.
Even if sylpheed is installed, nothing is run by default, so apart from
a bit of disk space this doesn't cause any problems. So even if the libs*
are *not* split out, it would be totally fine for sylfilter package to pull
in sylpheed.

Of course it is nice to split out libs* and avoid this bit
of bloat, but it's not that much of an issue, and no reason to hold up
the review. Currently sylpheed.rpm provides libsylph-0.so.1()(64bit),
and rpm will automatically generate a dependency on this in sylfilter.rpm.
If/when libs* are split out, this dependency will be satisfied by the
libs* subpackage. That's all.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #22 from Dan Horák  ---
> > 2. Requires: sylpheed
> > 
> > This is often superfluous. Generally, RPM will pick up it automatically.
> 
> Why so? If sylpheed is not installed, then sylfilter has to be built
> differently.

no, rpmbuild adds automatically dependencies on shared libraries used in the
resulting rpm. So there will be always a dependency on libsylph no matter in
which package or rpm libsylph will live.

If sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, we can move the
libsylph library into own subpackage.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685

Dan Horák  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||d...@danny.cz



--- Comment #24 from Dan Horák  ---
(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #23)
> (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #22)
> > > > 2. Requires: sylpheed
> > > > 
> > > > This is often superfluous. Generally, RPM will pick up it automatically.
> > > 
> > > Why so? If sylpheed is not installed, then sylfilter has to be built
> > > differently.
> > 
> > no, rpmbuild adds automatically dependencies on shared libraries used in the
> > resulting rpm. So there will be always a dependency on libsylph no matter in
> > which package or rpm libsylph will live.
> > 
> > If sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, we can move the
> > libsylph library into own subpackage.
> 
> Sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, but does this not mean
> that sylpheed will have to be rebuilt and be disruptive to an existing
> mature package (the mailer?).

There is nothing disruptive on introducing a new subpackage in an exiting
package. The library file is already there, it will just move to new rpm.

> Btw, someone is trying to package libsylph separately, FWIW:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288927

I don't understand why someone wants to introduce 8 years old code when an
up-to-date version is already available in the distro ...

> 
> New files removing requirement of sylpheed posted at:
> 
> 
> SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec
> SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-6.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #23 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #22)
> > > 2. Requires: sylpheed
> > > 
> > > This is often superfluous. Generally, RPM will pick up it automatically.
> > 
> > Why so? If sylpheed is not installed, then sylfilter has to be built
> > differently.
> 
> no, rpmbuild adds automatically dependencies on shared libraries used in the
> resulting rpm. So there will be always a dependency on libsylph no matter in
> which package or rpm libsylph will live.
> 
> If sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, we can move the
> libsylph library into own subpackage.

Sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, but does this not mean
that sylpheed will have to be rebuilt and be disruptive to an existing mature
package (the mailer?).

Btw, someone is trying to package libsylph separately, FWIW:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288927


New files removing requirement of sylpheed posted at:


SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec
SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-6.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #25 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #24)
> (In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #23)
> > (In reply to Dan Horák from comment #22)
> > > > > 2. Requires: sylpheed
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is often superfluous. Generally, RPM will pick up it 
> > > > > automatically.
> > > > 
> > > > Why so? If sylpheed is not installed, then sylfilter has to be built
> > > > differently.
> > > 
> > > no, rpmbuild adds automatically dependencies on shared libraries used in 
> > > the
> > > resulting rpm. So there will be always a dependency on libsylph no matter 
> > > in
> > > which package or rpm libsylph will live.
> > > 
> > > If sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, we can move the
> > > libsylph library into own subpackage.
> > 
> > Sylfilter is useful without the sylpheed GUI client, but does this not mean
> > that sylpheed will have to be rebuilt and be disruptive to an existing
> > mature package (the mailer?).
> 
> There is nothing disruptive on introducing a new subpackage in an exiting
> package. The library file is already there, it will just move to new rpm.

OK, but I guess then I am stuck till this happens. I will containing using my
local rpm which has been serving me well for the past 5 years.

> 
> > Btw, someone is trying to package libsylph separately, FWIW:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288927
> 
> I don't understand why someone wants to introduce 8 years old code when an
> up-to-date version is already available in the distro ...

I agree and have not quite understood the rationale.

>  
> > 
> > New files removing requirement of sylpheed posted at:
> > 
> > 
> > SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec
> > SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-6.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #18 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
I have made the changes suggested by splitting sylfilter and making a
sylfilter-devel file. Please review and comment:


New files uploaded:


SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec
SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-4.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #15 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
Any update?

Open issues with *-2:
* [MUSTFIX] Not building against external sylpheed
- Missing "BuildRequires: sylpheed-devel"
- Pass --with-libsylph=sylpheed instead of --with-libsylph=builtin
  to %configure

* [MUSTFIX] no *-devel subpackage

* [MUSTFIX] *.la are not removed.
Add
rm ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/*.la
to %install

* The DESTDIR=... is redundant in 
"%make_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"
"%make_install" already adds DESTDIR

* Useless define: %define  ver 0.8

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #16 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #15)
> Any update?
> 
> Open issues with *-2:
> * [MUSTFIX] Not building against external sylpheed
> - Missing "BuildRequires: sylpheed-devel"
> - Pass --with-libsylph=sylpheed instead of --with-libsylph=builtin
>   to %configure

Why is this a MUSTFIX? Building against sylpheed will mean requiring the
package for installation. It reduces the package size from 91k to 46k which is
not much, however, requiring sylpheed for someone who does not intend to use
sylpheed for this purpose would increase his/her pulled-in RPM size by 7.8M
(which is what sylpheed's RPM is).

As I said, it does not affect me personally, but is this something we want to
do?

Nevertheless, I have done what you have suggested. Not sure if it is a good
idea.


> 
> * [MUSTFIX] no *-devel subpackage

Will have to fix this: first have to find how to do this.

> * [MUSTFIX] *.la are not removed.
> Add
> rm ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/*.la
> to %install

done (after %make_install)

> * The DESTDIR=... is redundant in 
> "%make_install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"
> "%make_install" already adds DESTDIR
> 
> * Useless define: %define  ver 0.8

I don't understand this one.

New files uploaded:


SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec
SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-3.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #17 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #16)
> (In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #15)
> > Any update?
> > 
> > Open issues with *-2:
> > * [MUSTFIX] Not building against external sylpheed
> > - Missing "BuildRequires: sylpheed-devel"
> > - Pass --with-libsylph=sylpheed instead of --with-libsylph=builtin
> >   to %configure
> 
> Why is this a MUSTFIX?
To put it bluntly: because bundling is harmful, stupid and dumb.

Less bluntly: bundling renders packages unmaintainable, vulnerable and causes
bloat.

> Building against sylpheed will mean requiring the
> package for installation. It reduces the package size from 91k to 46k which
> is not much, however, requiring sylpheed for someone who does not intend to
> use sylpheed for this purpose would increase his/her pulled-in RPM size by
> 7.8M (which is what sylpheed's RPM is).
Size-wise bundling causes bloat because each statically linked packages re-adds
the same libraries over and over again.

What causes the bloat in case of sylpheed is the libs* not having been split
out into a separate package and them being packaged together with docs and
binaries. If this is of real concern to you, you can consider to file an RFE
and request a split out of the libs.

> > * [MUSTFIX] no *-devel subpackage
> 
> Will have to fix this: first have to find how to do this.

Coarse (Incomplete) outline:


% package devel
Summary: Development files for sylfilter
Requires: sylfilter%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

%description devel
Development files for sylfilter
[...]
%files
%doc README
%license COPYING
%{_bindir}/sylfilter
%{_libdir}/libsylfilter.so.*

%files devel
%{_libdir}/libsylfilter.so
%{_includedir}/sylfilter


I hope tot be able have a look into *-3, tomorrow.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #12 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #10)
> (In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #8)
> > Not sure how to split a package into itself and a devel but is that
> > important?
> Yes. This is a MUSTFIX.
> 
> Somewhat oversimplyfied nutshell: 
> * Move %includedir/*.h, %libdir/*.so and devel docs into *-devel
> * Move %bindir/*, %libdir/*.so.* and user docs into 

OK I will look into this. Still not sure about the value but will do.

(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #11)
> (In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #9)
> > I now recall why I prefer builtin. This makes it independent of sylpheed.
> That's short-sighted, but explaining this would be beyond the scope of a
> review.
> 
> > If
> > it is not there, it can not be used.
> Correct. Taking care about this is called "packaging".

But then if sylpheed is not there, then it will be pulled in even if the user
does not use the e-mailer, but only the filter. Is that a good move? It does
not affect me personally because I use both sylpheed and sylfilter.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #14 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
maitra's scratch build of sylfilter-0.8-2.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12027082

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt  ---
> But then if sylpheed is not there, then it will be pulled in even
> if the user does not use the e-mailer,

It would be perfectly imaginable to have the "sylpheed" src.rpm put libsylph
files into separate "libsylph" and "libsylph-devel" subpackages. It would not
be the first application package to split off a library like that.

Just because that hasn't been done so far is no reason not to do it as soon as
the first libsylph API users appear in the package collection.


> Btw, my communication with Hiroyuki led me to believe that if
> I had sylpheed installed as a binary, then I should use
> --with-libsylph=builtin.

That sounds unusual. If libsylph is available as a shared lib plus API headers,
why not reuse it then?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #3 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
Updated spec and SRPM files are here:

SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec
SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-1.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #4 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
Fedora Account System Username: maitra

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685

Ralf Corsepius  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rc040...@freenet.de



--- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
Ranjan, your "rant" on users@ has provoked me enough to add some 
informal comments on this package (based on *0.8-1 from comment#1):

* *.spec is cluttered with rpm anachronisms, 
  which should not be used in new *.spec:
- Remove %clean
- Remove "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" from %install
- Remove BuildRoot
- Remove %defattr

* Packages should not be installed using %makeinstall, but be using DESTDIR,
e.g. use %make_install instead.

* Package wastes resources on building a static library.
- Append --disable-static to %configure
- Remove "rm /*.a"

* AFAIS, this package seems to bundle a library (libsylpheed) which already is
in Fedora (package sylpheed). You should be using the unbundled version.
(%configure --with-libsylph=sylpheed --with-libsylph-dir=/usr)

* COPYING is duplicated in %doc and %license. Remove the copy from %doc.

* The package should be split into a *-devel and non-devel subpackages.

(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #3)
> Updated spec and SRPM files are here:
> 
> SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec
> SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-1.fc23.src.rpm
Increment the %release each time you change something in your *spec. Not
incrementing Release avoidably complicates reviews.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #6 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
Thanks! I tried this, but now I get errors, indeed lots of it. Can I send you
personal e-mail?

Btw, my communication with Hiroyuki led me to believe that if I had sylpheed
installed as a binary, then I should use --with-libsylph=builtin.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685

Michael Schwendt  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841
[Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a
sponsor
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #2 from Michael Schwendt  ---
Not blocking bug 177841 means that the ticket has been visible only in the
queue of NEW reviews: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html

That nobody has commented on it implies that nobody from the community is
interested in it.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #6)
> Thanks! I tried this, but now I get errors, indeed lots of it. Can I send
> you personal e-mail?
I don't have much spare time left today, and can't promise, but I can try to do
so, likely tomorrow.

> Btw, my communication with Hiroyuki led me to believe that if I had sylpheed
> installed as a binary, then I should use --with-libsylph=builtin.
No, unless sysfilter is crappily designed, there should not be any technical
reason for bundling.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #8 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
Here is the updated spec and rpm file. They compile. They do not compile if I
remove 

% clean

and if I replace 

--with-libsylph=sylpheed 

in place of 

--with-libsylph=builtin

Updated spec and SRPM files are here:

SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec
SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-.fc23.src.rpm

Not sure how to split a package into itself and a devel but is that important?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #9 from Ranjan Maitra  ---
Never mind. I was able to correct it some more. Updated files are now here. (I
think that I was supposed to remmove the entire %clean section).

I now recall why I prefer builtin. This makes it independent of sylpheed. If it
is not there, it can not be used. But someone may want to use sylfilter which
is fast and lightweight using a different e-mailer. Indeed, I do so myself,
usning procmail with sylfilter and also sylpheed with sylfilter, the first to
do an initial processing and the second to classify mails that have not been
correctly classified.  Any suggestions as to how to handle this?

Btw, the new files are here (sorry for the typo in the previous post):

Updated spec and SRPM files are here:

SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec
SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-2.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #10 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #8)
> Not sure how to split a package into itself and a devel but is that
> important?
Yes. This is a MUSTFIX.

Somewhat oversimplyfied nutshell: 
* Move %includedir/*.h, %libdir/*.so and devel docs into *-devel
* Move %bindir/*, %libdir/*.so.* and user docs into 

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
(In reply to Ranjan Maitra from comment #9)
> I now recall why I prefer builtin. This makes it independent of sylpheed.
That's short-sighted, but explaining this would be beyond the scope of a
review.

> If
> it is not there, it can not be used.
Correct. Taking care about this is called "packaging".

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1265685] Review Request: sylfilter -- a Bayesian spam filter for mailers

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1265685



--- Comment #1 from Globe Trotter  ---
Updated spec and SRPM files are here:

SPEC: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter.spec
SRPM: http://maitra.public.iastate.edu/Fedora/sylfilter-0.8-1.fc22.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review