[Bug 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
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-filesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226638 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review? -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
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-filesystem https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226638 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
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-filesystem
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226638
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-02-04 10:38 EST ---
* I'm a bit unsure about this package in general -- is it really still needed?
FC5 has modular X already, and we don't support from older releases anymore
iirc. RHEL5 should have this package, too, and RHEL6 probably should not need it
anymore, too.
* why doesn't this package simply own some of the other important directorys
like /usr/lib/xorg/modules/
* Stuff like "cat > "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/${UPGRADE_CMD}" <<'EOF'" is disliked; it
should live in a separate file that it included as source
* Quoting the spec
{{{
# NOTE: Do not replace these with _libdir or _includedir macros, they are
# intentionally explicit.
}}}
Nice, the comment helps -- but it would help more if the reason why its
"intentionally explicit" would be mentioned ;-) Ohh, it's explained later in the
spec; Not importatn, but maybe mention in once at the top of the spec file
properly might be the best
* rpmlint:
rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-filesystem-7.1-2.fc7.noarch.rpm
W: xorg-x11-filesystem incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.1-2.fc6 7.1-2.fc7
-> simply avoid mention the disttag in the changelog
W: xorg-x11-filesystem invalid-license MIT/X11
-> Would be MIT, but what actualy is licenced under MIT/X11 ?
W: xorg-x11-filesystem no-documentation
-> acceptable
E: xorg-x11-filesystem standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/lib/X11
-> owned by package "filesystem", so not needed
W: xorg-x11-filesystem dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-filesystem-7.1-2.fc7.src.rpm
W: xorg-x11-filesystem invalid-license MIT/X11
-> see above
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/X11"
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
-> accpetable in this case
W: xorg-x11-filesystem no-%build-section
-> accpetable in this case
Stopping reviewing here for now until it becomes clear this is still needed
--
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@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
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=226638 --- Comment #3 from Adam Jackson 2009-07-23 10:06:28 EDT --- Took another look at this, and I'm pretty sure we can just drop this package outright by now. I've started removing all the explicit deps on xorg-x11-filesystem, and added /usr/share/X11 to filesystem. The only question I have is how (or whether) xorg-x11-filesystem should be obsoleted so that it gets uninstalled from any existing systems. I don't think it's strictly necessary, since it's not like it _does_ anything... -- 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 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
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=226638 --- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-07-23 10:11:51 EDT --- Probably should just let filesystem Provide/Obsolete: xorg-x11-filesystem. -- 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 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
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=226638 Adam Jackson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||WORKSFORME --- Comment #5 from Adam Jackson 2009-08-04 13:52:03 EDT --- Dead in rawhide, nothing Requires: it anymore and filesystem Prov/Obs it as suggested in comment #4. -- 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 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
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=226638 Jussi Lehtola changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
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=226638 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|WORKSFORME |NOTABUG -- 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 226638] Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
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=226638
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tcall...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-01-16
11:01:41 EDT ---
Alright, lets pick this old merge review up, because I think we can beat it
into shape.
The biggest item that I see here is that there is an embedded update "script".
That would make a lot more sense to have it live as a Source file, especially
since it is not using any rpm macros. It would also simplify the rpm spec file
quite a bit.
There is the question as to whether this script (and the %pre copy) are still
necessary in Fedora. If you think so, please keep them, if not, please remove
them both from the package.
Please add an empty %build section.
Also, %dir %{_bindir}/xorg-x11-filesystem-upgrade is just wrong. That's a
script, not a directory.
The last issue is that there seems to be fair bit of directory ownership
duplication in the xorg stack.
/usr/lib/X11: filesystem, xorg-x11-filesystem
/usr/include/X11/: xorg-x11-filesystem, libfontenc-devel, libxkbfile-devel,
libXdmcp-devel, libXfixes-devel, libICE-devel, libSM-devel, libXau-devel,
libXt-devel, libXpm-devel, libXmu-devel, libXft-devel, libXv-devel,
libXcursor-devel, libXvMC-devel, libXaw-devel, libXevie-devel, libXres-devel,
libXfont-devel, libXcomposite-devel, libXrender-devel, libXdamage-devel,
xorg-x11-xtrans-devel, libX11-devel, libXrandr-devel, xorg-x11-proto-devel
/usr/share/X11: xorg-x11-filesystem, xorg-x11-server-utils,
xorg-x11-font-utils, xorg-x11-utils, imake, libX11, xkeyboard-config
If we don't need the upgrade script anymore, do we need this package anymore?
Could we let filesystem own /usr/lib/X11 and /usr/share/X11,
xorg-x11-proto-devel own /usr/include/X11 (and all those other dupes should
Require: xorg-x11-proto-devel)
--
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
