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