Excerpts from Jason L Tibbitts III's message of Mon Jul 02 07:38:40 +1000 2012: > >>>>> "DC" == Dan Callaghan <dcallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > DC> I will take all three (they look straightforward :-) in exchange for > DC> saslwrapper: > > Since you appear to be familiar with sugar, is there any possibility > that you (or anyone else who is familiar with sugar stuff) could cast a > glance at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708663 ? This > poor guy has been waiting for nearly 13 months for someone to look at > his package. I can do the bulk of the review and the sponsorship if no > sponsor/sugar expert is available but I don't know how to actually do > any testing of sugar-related things. I am by no means a Sugar expert. I didn't know anything about it until I took these three reviews last night. :-) I am working from the Sugar activity guidelines here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SugarActivityGuidelines and I installed F17 in a VM and did yum groupinstall Sugar\ Desktop\ Environment for testing out the packages. It also helps that the activities are in Python which I am well versed in. As it happens I was planning to try and track down somebody responsible for those guidelines, because there are a few things which do not seem right to me. I've found the OLPC list (cc'ed) which seems to be the closest we have to a Sugar SIG. Hopefully somebody there can help out. * The sample spec in the guidelines uses Group: Sugar/Activities, but it's not mentioned anywhere else that I can find, and rpmlint complains because it is non-standard. Are we supposed to just waive that warning in the package review? * The upstream-supplied setup.py for these three Sugar activities just calls sugar.activity.bundlebuilder.start(), which seems to copy the entire directory contents wholesale into /usr/share/sugar/activities -- including stuff like setup.py, NEWS, COPYING... There are apparently a lot of existing packages that do it too: $ repoquery -f /usr/share/sugar/activities/\*/setup.py | wc -l 68 Is it really necessary to include these files in the activity directory? COPYING, NEWS, etc are already installed by %doc, as they should be, so it seems superfluous to have them installed again. And setup.py shouldn't be needed for an installed package. Should this sugar.activity.bundlebuilder be patched to be more selective in what it copies? Or should each activity package be responsible for cleaning out its buildroot after the bundlebuilder has run? Or is there some reason why these files should be installed in the activity directory? -- Dan Callaghan <dcallagh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
