[Bug 228434] Review Request: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: x2vnc - Dual screen hack for VNC


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228434





------- Additional Comments From mastahnke@xxxxxxxxx  2007-02-21 00:43 EST -------
Spec URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/x2vnc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.stahnkage.com/rpms/x2vnc-1.7.2-2.src.rpm



>* BuildRequires:
>
> - All BR must not be on the same line (max 76), vim is your friend...
Fixed
> - There're some BR which're not necessary to be set ( such as "make",
>"autoconf", "gcc" "and automake").
Removed.  Not sure what I was thinking here :)
> - All others are not quite good, you must use -devel package (e.g libXext-devel).
Reworked this section.  
> - xorg-x11-proto-devel is redundant as libX11-devel (which should be set
>instead of libX11) is require by libXinerama-devel.
> - libX11-devel is redundant as libXinerama-devel requires libX11-devel.
> - check for some other BR too.
I pulled all devel libs that appear to be needed and tried installing each to
see if they pulled each other.  They don't appear to, at least not the final set
listed in BR.
>
>* Requires
>
> - You should really think about what x2vnc requires to be able to start and
>work correctly.
> - According to me, x2vnc doesn't work alone.
> - Check this.
x2vnc requires almost nothing to run.  Look at the spec for xterm, it requires
nothing.  Ideally, I would require an X11 session of some sort, but I am not
sure what syntax to use for "X must be present".
>
>* %prep
>
> - the use of "cp -f x2vnc.man x2vnc.man.orig" is useless. You don't need to
>create an save file.
> - Also the use of "mv -f new_man x2vnc.man" is useless.
> - Just use :
>   iconv -f iso-8859-5 -t utf-8 x2vnc.man > x2vnc.man
>   instead of
>   iconv -f iso-8859-5 -t utf-8 x2vnc.man > new_man
Changed
>
>* %build
> - sounds good.
>
>* %install
>
> - The use of "mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" is useless.
>   Buildroot is already created by default.
> - You should add timestamp in your "make install" : INSTALL="install -p".
Changed
>
>* %changelog
>
> - please add a DOT to "Initial packaging" sentence.
Ok


-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]