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: xtide - Calculate tide all over the world https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211626 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-10-25 19:00 EST ------- * rpmlint warnings: This one should be acted upon: W: xtide strange-permission xtide-README.fedora 0600 Others are ignorable W: xtide strange-permission tideEditor-wrapper.sh 0755 W: xtide dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/xtide.png ../../../../xtide/icon_48x48_orig.png W: xtide dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/xtide.png ../../../../xtide/icon_16x16_orig.png W: tcd-utils dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps/tideEditor.png ../../../../xtide/icon_16x16_orig.png W: tcd-utils dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/tideEditor.png ../../../../xtide/icon_48x48_orig.png * spec is not very legible, with tons of macros and building of 3-4 different programs with different build systems. This is unavoidable, however as we may have to build packages together due to inter-dependencies: libtcd, part of xtide is needed by tcd-utils. tcd-utils generates the harmonics files which are needed by the xtide programs. In the current situation we cannot redistribute the harmonics file, so it could be possible to have tcd-utils in another package, but in that case it wouldn't be possible to have a package which also includes the harmonics (there is a %with ready for that situation). * free software with licence included or excerpted (GPL and Public Domain) * names are right. This package case is not completly unambigously covered by the guidelines, given all the peculiarities: libtcd which has a version is included in xtide. Although xtide is a development snippet, libtcd is a stable version; tcd_utils also has a version, but it is not in the tarball name, the tarball name uses a date. All are packaged together... * follows guidelines * match upstream 730880e830eed1b4585b89fec55b9358 tcd-utils_2004-08-15.tar.gz 04d7f6346204a728441b51f9f6377979 xtide-2.9dev-20061015.tar.bz2 * gui apps have desktop and icon files The guideline for desktop files are not followed exactly, but the guidelines break with desktop-file-utils-0.11-1.fc7. * libraries rightly packaged (no rpath, no .la, .so and headers in -devel, ldconfig called). * doc don't affect runtime * directory ownership is right * works correctly off-the-box * RPM_OPT_FLAGS are correctly used * %files right * snippets clean BLOCKERS: - The rpmlint warning above - the common subpackage sould Requires wget and bzip2 for the script. COMMENTS: - the README.fedora could be ameliorated: There is a reference to a scriptlet, but the scriptlet isn't there: The following scriptlet does all which is needed to install the harmonics file (last command must be done with the administrator privileges): Alternatively you can run the provided script xtide-get_harmonics.sh The paths with xtide-wvs/ should be updated. - the licence of the common package is certainly more Public Domain than GPL - the package which install in hicolor could depend on hicolor-icon-theme for directory ownership, but this is not very clear to whether this is really right since it adds an otherwise unneeded dependency to a lot of packages. - I think that a note about README.fedora should be in all the packages description needing the harmonics file. It is allready in xtide, it may be relevant to add to the xttpd and tcd-utils %description something along: Please read README.fedora in common package for Fedora specific issue. Accepted provided the BLOCKERS issues are fixed. Michael, do you have any comment? -- 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