[Bug 1424890] Review Request: domterm - terminal emulator based on web technologies

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1424890



--- Comment #19 from Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> ---
Updated (same locations):

Spec URL: http://per.bothner.com/DomTerm/domterm.spec
SRPM URL: http://per.bothner.com/DomTerm/domterm-0.74-1.fc25.src.rpm

I'll clean up the Source0 commans and version numbers when when everything else
is OK.  It probably makes sense until libwebsockets 2.2 is updated and I can
test against that.

".desktop files should be installed using ... desktop-file-validate"

Fixed,

"rpmlint caught an issue anyway, though: the .desktop file contains the line
`Exec=domterm`, but there is no `domterm` file under /usr/bin/ -- just ldomterm
and qtdomterm."

Well, there is be a /usr/bin/domterm installed, using alternates, but I changed
the .desktop line to Exec=ldomterm.

"The built domterm package contains the directory /usr/lib/.build-id/  -- which
looks to me like leftovers from the build. Probably this isn't needed in the
binary RPM, right?"

I'm somewhat mystified by this.  I noticed the /usr/lib/.build-id directory is
full of links on Rawhide, but doesn't exist on F25.

It seems to be related to this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBuildId

"fedora-review detects some directories without a known owner."

Fixed.

"The spec License tag simply says "BSD". Since there are so many variants on
the BSD license, I don't think that's specific enough."

>From what I can tell, "BSD" is correct:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Valid_License_Short_Names
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses

"Moreover, fedora-review's license check finds 3 files in /qtdomterm/ which
have comments stating that they use the GNU GPL, which I think might mean that
all of DomTerm should also use GPL(?)."

Only qtdomterm needs to be GPL.  This is only an issue with certain "backend"
files, and I think it will make sense to rip those out in favor of using
ldomterm, for the sake of simplicity.  But until then I changed the qtdomterm
license to "GPLv2+".

"I also suspect that all these files containing copied code might amount to
library bundling, which is at least discouraged in Fedora."

Do you mean the third-party JavaScript files I use?  They're relatively small,
and I think trying to package a bunch of JavaScript client files would be a
pain.

"Right, DomTerm itself doesn't really *need* Java, it's optional for only a
couple features. ... If it would only be an issue when trying to use those
optional features, and preferably if DomTerm can gracefully handle Java's
absence, then I guess you're fine."

I think so. And I think it may be preferable to forcing installation of a bunch
of Java packages.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




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