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: bogl - a graphics library and an Unicode terminal emulator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214124 ------- Additional Comments From mitr@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-11-09 18:23 EST ------- Thanks for the comments! (In reply to comment #1) > * rpmlint is not silent. [SNIP] > I can see from the comment in the specthat there really aren't any URL > presently, but I think that one should be provided/created. packages.debian.org URL added. > * There is no use of the %find_lang macro in the spec. There are no locale files > so maybe this is not needed anyway? Exactly. > * /usr/share/bogl is not owned by any package (use %dir) AFAICS this directory is owned by bogl-bterm. > * /usr/include/bogl is not owned by any package (use %dir) ... and this one by bogl-devel. > * You are using: "Requires: bogl = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}". > Why not: "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" ? Se also my comment > about the epoch tag below. Because the package does have Epoch: 0. Even if 0 behaves exactly the same as "not present" (which I'm not sure is true), it seems better not to rely on this. > From http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines: > * Timestamps: Consider using "install -p" and "cp -p". You could use > INSTALL="install -c -p" in your make install command Changed for the header files, the other files are created during the build. > Other issues: > * I can't see any resaon why you need to use the epoch tag. Version numbers like > 0.1.18 are not hard for RPM to parse at all. See e.g. here: > http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm-snapshot/s1-rpm-inside-tags.html#S3-RPM-INSIDE-REQUIRES-TAG The epoch is already in the old Fedora / RHEL packages, and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tools/RPM/VersionComparison seems to say removing the epoch could break upgrades. > * There is no COPYING file in the top-level source directory. There should be. Too bad. I have added the debian/copyright files, although I don't think they can really replace the licence. > * The *.bdf files are not under the GPL, but they appear to be free enough > * bogl does not use autoconf/automake. I really do find that the old Makefile > way is to inflexible. This should be fixed upstream, not in Fedora packaging. > * Please use "Release: 12%{?dist}" not "Release: 12" AFAIK the dist tag is not mandatory, and I'd rather not use it for the main branch if possible. > * There is a lot of compile warnings. These warning should be reviewd for > seriousness. I know this is just me being overly strict, but I would prefer the > Werror compile flag to be mandatory for all F[C,E] packages. I have reviewed them about a year ago, and IIRC all the remaining warnings are harmless. > - I recommend using %_datadir instead of /usr/share. Both /usr/share/terminfo and /usr/share/bogl are hardcoded in the bogl installation scripts and the source, respectively, so the spec file should use /usr/share as well. > - fedora specific compilation flags are not passed. Fixed. > - Well, Japanese people (including me) always complain about bterm > as this software (bterm) is not useful for non-root users because > *it seems* bterm requires device access right to /dev/tty0 . > (I have not checked the whole source code of bterm and perhaps it is > impossible for me). It fails on opening /dev/tty0, but even if that were removed, bogl needs root privileges anyway to drive the VGA hardware. I have looked at the kernel code a bit and I couldn't find any alternative, although I'm not very familiar with the framebuffer API. I'd prefer leaving the program as is, I don't think it was audited for running by hostile users. http://people.redhat.com/mitr/extras/bogl-0.1.18-13.src.rpm : * Fri Nov 10 2006 Miloslav Trmac <mitr@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0:0.1.18-13 - Add URL: - Preserve modification date of header files - Ship debian/copyright - Compile all files with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- 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