Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xorg-x11-apps https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226571 fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |sandmann@xxxxxxxxxx CC| |fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-03 11:51 EST ------- * The licensing of this package is odd afaics: * xcursorgen-1.0.1/COPYING -> I asked on #fedora-extras and jeremy replied: "reworded MIT. would be worth sending mail to the upstream and asking if it can be switched to the standard wording" * All the other contain a COPYING file that contains {{{ This is a stub file. This package has not yet had its complete licensing information compiled. Please see the individual source files for details on your rights to use and modify this software. Please submit updated COPYING files to the Xorg bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=xorg All licensing questions regarding this software should be directed at the Xorg mailing list: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg }}} That really should be fixed upstream. Most the .c .h files seems to contain a MIT license in the header. But those not: {{{ ./xpr-1.0.1/x2pmp.c ./xpr-1.0.1/pmp.h ./xpr-1.0.1/xpr.h ./luit-1.0.1/locale.c ./xeyes-1.0.1/transform.c ./xeyes-1.0.1/Eyes.h ./xeyes-1.0.1/EyesP.h ./xeyes-1.0.1/transform.h ./xload-1.0.1/get_rload.c ./xload-1.0.1/xload.h }}} * rpmlint E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided XFree86 E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11 E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided XFree86-tools E: xorg-x11-apps obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-tools -> These were probably needed during the switch to modular X -- are they still needed? Maybe just drop them. Providing those probably does not make sense anymore. W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86 W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11 W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-tools W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-tools -> That should be fixed, in case we sometime in the future want to provide packages with those names again W: xorg-x11-apps invalid-license MIT/X11 -> please use "MIT" W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides luit W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides oclock W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides x11perf W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xbiff W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xclipboard W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xclock W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xconsole W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xcursorgen W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xeyes W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xkill W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xload W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xlogo W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xmag W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xmessage W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xpr W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xwd W: xorg-x11-apps unversioned-explicit-provides xwud -> Those packages have versions upstream, we should provide them * MISC: * From files: %dir %{_datadir}/X11 -> a lot of packages own that dir. It should be owned by only one package (maybe by the filesystem) * From files: %{_datadir}/X11/app-defaults/ -> Owning %dir %{_datadir}/X11 but not it's subdir app-defaults/ is "interesting" * Hmm, a lot of apps, but no docs? At least x-Message has a README that maybe should be shipped * A lot of GUI apps, but no desktop files. Quoting the guidelines: " - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation." * the "pkgname" macro -- why define a macro if it's used only in one place? Please consider getting rid of. * besides that: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) license is open source-compatible. BuildRequires are proper. final provides and requires are sane: no shared libraries are present. package is not relocatable. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. %clean is present. no scriptlets present. code, not content. documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. no headers. no pkgconfig files. no libtool .la droppings. not a GUI app. not a web app. no open bugs -- 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