Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Openbox https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292 peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-18 19:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > $ rpmlint SRPMS/openbox-3.3-0.3.rc2.src.rpm > W: openbox strange-permission openbox.desktop 0775 I based the permissions on the fact that both the gnome.desktop (provided in the Core gnome-session package) and fluxbox.desktop (from fluxbox in Extras) both install it as world-executable. I've changed that in %install to 0644 tentatively; but is there some specific guidelines on this? A search on the Wiki didn't return anything helpful. > $ rpmlint RPMS/i386/openbox-* > E: openbox script-without-shellbang /usr/share/xsessions/openbox.desktop Making it non-executable appears to have quieted rpmlint. > it could be simpler if the conditionalized epoch stuff were left out for the > -devel package Done. > if the version macroization were calmed down (the package > releases every two years, so updating versions isn't that big a deal ;-) Though I don't see anything particularly wrong with it, I'll see if I can clean it up a little. > and if > the x requires stuff weren't conditionalized since you'll have separate specs in > each branch anyway. Not a big deal though. With all due respect, I like to keep the spec files between branches similar if not the same, as it makes it simpler for me to maintain. Also, I wrote the spec file thinking somewhat of portability to other RPM-driven distros too, and this would help alleviate the dependencies there. Please let me know if this is improper to do, and I'll unconditionalize the BR (using the xorg-x11-devel on the FC-4 branch and the modular X.org stuff on FC-5 and higher). > - package dir ownership is broken for the theme files: > [...] > needs to own Allegro, Artwiz, etc and openbox-3 dirs My reasoning for this is that other packages might also use themes named Allegro, Artwiz, etc.; so by only owning the openbox-3 directories within each, other such packages could interact with this in a well-behaved manner. Or, is it preferred to share the directory ownership between theme packages? > Looks pretty good -- only changes required are fixing theme file directory > ownership and the permissions on the desktop file Thanks for your comments and advice. I posted and updated package (3.3-0.4.rc2) with the permissions issue fixed. SRPM: http://www.thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.4.rc2.src.rpm Spec: http://www.thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review