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=484049 --- Comment #4 from Alan Dunn <amdunn@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-07 09:00:37 EDT --- I remember now that I had looked at the X-Symbol part before, and was wondering if it should be left in as the X-Symbol distribution in Proof General is modified from the original: ---------------------------------------------- (in x-symbol.README.x-symbol-for-ProofGeneral:) The code in this directory is taken from http://x-symbol.sourceforge.net/ This is version 4.5.1-beta (dated 2003-05-11 15:00) Several changes have been made for Proof General, including: * the addition of 18pt and 24pt fonts, see etc/bigfonts. (thanks to Clemens Ballarin). * the addition of a mechanism to use Norbert Voelker's isaxsymb1.ttf (see etc/fonts-ttf) automatically on Mac using Carbon Emacs. You need to install isaxsymb1.ttf into Font Book This is experimental support and may have some issues. * Experimental (not yet working) support for Emacs 23 * Addition of `x-symbol-image-converter-required' which defaults to nil, to avoid X-Symbol giving warnings when it doesn't find ImageMagick convert. Images aren't used in Proof General, but if you want to use the same X-Symbol in LaTeX, you might want to customize this setting to t. * addition of the string "[Proof General]" to x-symbol-version The following rearrangements from the package directory layout have been made: for f in etc lisp man; do mv $f/x-symbol/* $f; rmdir $f/x-symbol; done Moreover, lisp/Makefile and lisp/makefile.pkg were copied from X-Symbol source package, and lisp/makefile.pkg edited to remove x-symbol-emacs from list of compiled files (since it breaks on XEmacs compile). ---------------------------------------------- Is there a good solution to this problem? We don't necessarily want these changes to persist when it's used in other programs... I suppose I can try and encourage upstream to rewrite this in a way that should work with a separate version of x-symbol. (I could also try and do this myself, but it might not be obvious whether the changes that are listed here are the only ones anyway.) I definitely missed mmm when I looked before though, and it claims to not be modified from the original, so I'll look into packaging that separately. (In reply to comment #2) > MUST items: > - rpmlint output: > emacs-proofgeneral.noarch: W: no-documentation > emacs-proofgeneral-el.noarch: W: no-documentation > xemacs-proofgeneral.noarch: W: no-documentation > xemacs-proofgeneral-el.noarch: W: no-documentation > 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > - package name > - spec file name matches base package name > X packaging guidelines: as noted in comment #1, we may have a problem with > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects. > Also note that some files in the top-level lib directory may violate this > rule, too. > - good license > - license field matches actual license > - include license file in %doc > - spec file in American English > - spec file legible > - sources match upstream > - builds on at least one primary arch > - use ExcludeArch as necessary (N/A) > - all build dependencies in BuildRequires > - proper locale handling (N/A) > - call ldconfig as necessary (N/A) > - rationale if relocatable (N/A) > - own all created directories > - no duplicate %file listings > - proper file permissions > - %clean section > - consistent use of macros > - code or permissible content > - large documentation files in a subpackage (N/A) > - nothing in %doc needed at runtime > - header files in -devel (N/A) > - static libraries in -static (N/A) > - require pkgconfig if necessary (N/A) > - .so files in -devel (N/A) > - -devel requires base package (N/A) > - no libtool archives > - desktop files for GUI apps: rationale given in the description above > - don't own files or dirs created by other packages > - clean at top of %install > - filenames are UTF-8 > > SHOULD items: > - query upstream for license file (N/A) > - description and summary contain available translations (N/A) > ? package builds in mock: not checked > ? package builds on all suppported arches: not checked > - package functions as described > - sane scriptlets > - subpackages require main package > - pkgconfig files in -devel (N/A) > - package dependencies instead of file dependencies > > So we just need to investigate the use of bundled software and this package is > good to go. Thanks for submitting it! This will make a great addition to the > other prover-related software that has been pushed into Fedora recently. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review