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-font-utils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226640 fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-25 07:25 EST ------- * "# FIXME: Include missing docs sometime" -- I agree fully :-) ; COPYING files should be included as doc, too * mkfontdir and mkfontscale contain the "This is a stub file. [...]" stuff as COPYING :-/ There are no license informations *at all* in mkfontdir * "#%dir %{_mandir}/man1x" -> similar lines are in quite a lot of xorg packages -- would be nice to get rid of them over time, as those packages should not own that dir and the comment is unneeded * font-util -> BSD, not MIT license; running out of time right now -- I'm unsure if that's okay in this case (e.g. mixing LGPL and GPL and declaring that mix GPL in the spec file is okay, but I'm unsure about BSD and MIT license) * would be nice to get the patch upstream to avoid we have to run autoconf * seems ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/individual/app/font-util-1.0.1.tar.bz2 does not exist * the md5sum of bdftopcf-1.0.0.tar.bz2 does not match upstream * Quoting %files {{{ %dir %{_datadir}/X11 %dir %{_datadir}/X11/fonts }}} -> quite some packages own those directories -- we should work towards a solution where only one package owns those (and the other important X11) directories * rpmlint rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-2.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-font-utils invalid-license MIT/X11 -> (besides the BSD stuff mentioned above) "MIT" afaics for the MIT stuff (then rpmlint won't complain) -- W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides %{pkgname} -> with %{version}-%{release} please W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides bdftopcf W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides fonttosfnt W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides mkfontdir W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides mkfontscale W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides bdftruncate W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-provides ucs2any -> it's better to have those with their versions, too, in case we ever want to split them out W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-font-utils W: xorg-x11-font-utils unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86 -> is that still needed -- if yes, it will be better with version-number, in case we ever want to put some packages with those names out rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-2.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-font-utils invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above E: xorg-x11-font-utils obsolete-not-provided XFree86-font-utils E: xorg-x11-font-utils obsolete-not-provided XFree86 E: xorg-x11-font-utils obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-base-fonts E: xorg-x11-font-utils obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-tools -> well, would be nice to provide them, but is probably not that important anymore W: xorg-x11-font-utils devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/pkgconfig/fontutil.pc -> acceptable rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-font-utils-debuginfo-7.1-2.i386.rpm W: xorg-x11-font-utils-debuginfo invalid-license MIT/X11 -> see above Besides that: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. dist tag is present. build root is correct. %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) 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. 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