[Bug 225998] Merge Review: libdmx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225998 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-02-21 18:59:54 EDT --- I gave the excerpt from the manpage just for this purpose, and "Most X libs do it this way" is really not a good defense. Anyhow, Jason's correction made things a little better. Since there is no real guideline that a packager must obey about the quality of the summary/description, I can't put a blocker. -- This Merge Review (libdmx) is APPROVED by oget -- -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225998] Merge Review: libdmx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225998 --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-02-21 17:50:12 EDT --- I went ahead and used Summary: X.Org X11 DMX runtime library %description The X.Org X11 DMX (Distributed Multihead X) runtime library. which seem to satisfy the usual goals for these tags (summary doesn't include package name, both are basically useful as an explanation and bizarre acronyms are expanded in the description. They also don't stray overly from what other X packages are using. I guess the descriptions aren't grammatically sentences, but adding "This package contains" to them seems to be beyond pointless. At this point I would approve this package were it my review, but that's Orcan's call. I'm only sticking my head in here because ajax asked me to take a look. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225998] Merge Review: libdmx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225998 --- Comment #2 from Adam Jackson 2009-02-21 15:06:10 EDT --- Most of this is fixed in 1.0.2-7. Haven't touched %description yet, not really sure what's a good template. Most of the X libs have a similar description, so it'd be nice to keep them consistent. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225998] Merge Review: libdmx
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225998
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||a...@redhat.com,
||mcla...@redhat.com,
||oget.fed...@gmail.com
AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|oget.fed...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil 2009-01-17
21:07:17 EDT ---
This pretty much has the same issues with libXinerama. I just copied/pasted the
same bits from that review. Note that there are a few differences (the last two
issues).
* Summary and especially the description are bizarre. Can you update them. You
can find these on the manpage:
DMX - X Window System DMX (Distributed Multihead X) extension
The DMX extension provides support for communication with and control of
Xdmx
server. Attributes of the Xdmx server and of the back-end screens attached
to
the server can be queried and modified via this protocol.
* rpmlint says
libdmx.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-libs
libdmx.src:18: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-libs
libdmx.src:32: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel
libdmx.src:32: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel
libdmx.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libdmx-1.0.2/README
libdmx.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libdmx-1.0.2/AUTHORS
libdmx.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86-libs
libdmx.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-libs
libdmx-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided XFree86-devel
libdmx-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-devel
The zero-length files are obviously not needed so they should be removed. The
obsoletes look very problematic. Can you fix those (or alternatively explain
them in the SPEC file as comments)?
* BR: libXau-devel is not needed. Afaict it is not used.
* BRs: libX11-devel pkgconfig and xorg-x11-proto-devel are not needed. They
will be picked up by libXext-devel
* Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability). This applies to the devel package.
! Try to make use of the %{name} macro (e.g. files sections).
* Do we need this line?
#%dir %{_mandir}/man3x
* There is no "make" command in the SPEC file. The "make" is done via "make
install" which is not good. Please add a parallel "make" .
Adding Adam and Matthias to the CC since they were the last known maintainers.
Sorry if this was not desired.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
