[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225797





--- Comment #15 from Nils Philippsen <nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx>  2009-02-09 07:09:29 EDT ---
Sorry for the delay...

(In reply to comment #13)
> I can verify that this does indeed build fine with the first line changed to
>   %define gimpdatadir %(%{_bindir}/gimptool --gimpdatadir || echo blah)
> Everything that follows assumes that a similar change has been made.

I've added this workaround.

> However, I guess it's worth asking what that dependency does that the regular
> dependency on gimp doesn't do.  We really try to avoid file dependencies out of
> a few specific directories because they require the users to download
> additional large hunks of metadata.

Agreed. The package now requires gimp >= 2:2.0 and I've dropped the dependency
on the directory.

> Why is the release < 1?  It doesn't seem to me that the 2.0.2 tarball upstream
> is any kind of prerelease.

Uh, that's because I'm a stickler for eye-pleasing and I wanted to reserve the
-1 release for the version to import into Fedora CVS.

> Unfortunately I can't find any statement of the license version in use. 
> COPYING is simply v2 of the GPL, which has the usual language about being able
> to use any version if the program itself doesn't specify one.  That would
> indicate that GPL+ is the appropriate license tag, but it would be a good idea
> to clarify with upstream because I don't think that's what they intend.

I've checked with upstream and they told me I should consider it as GPLv2+.
There's a new version in the works which will hopefully clearly mention the
license directly in the archive.

> * source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
>   31f9b40822646729be9ff50856e803a59290c119c600a8fdab4b669c4ccf2c1f  
>    gimp-data-extras-2.0.2.tar.bz2
> X does not meet versioning guidelines.

OK if I bump it to -1 prior to importing? That leaves us -0.x for review
work....

> * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
> * summary is OK.
> * description is OK.
> * dist tag is present.
> * build root is OK.
> ? license field matches the actual license.

I can attach an IRC log snippet if necessary.

> * license is open source-compatible.
> * license text included in package.
> * latest version is being packaged.
> * BuildRequires are proper.
> * %clean is present.
> * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
> * package installs properly.
> * rpmlint is silent.
>   final provides and requires:
>    gimp-data-extras = 2.0.2-0.1.fc11
>   =
> ?  /usr/share/gimp/2.0
>    gimp

Resolved by directly requiring gimp >= 2:2.0 I think...

> * owns the directories it creates.
> * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
> * no duplicates in %files.
> * file permissions are appropriate.
> * no generically named files
> * acceptable content

New files:
Spec file: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/gimp-data-extras.spec
SRPM file:
http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/gimp-data-extras-2.0.2-0.2.fc10.src.rpm

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]