Spec URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/astronomy-bookmarks/astronomy-bookmarks.spec SRPM URL: http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/astronomy-bookmarks/astronomy-bookmarks-1-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: This package contains the astronomy bookmarks for Fedora.
Release: 1%{?dist} Somewhere I heard that dist tag is not needed in cross-release noarch packages (was it screensaver-frogs review?). Your bookmark file embeds a couple of images/icons. Are you sure those are freely redistributable?
Legal team, are these icons an issue? I know we have these also in default-bookmarks.
15:24:41 spot marek: if you want to keep the icons, you need to get explicit approval from each trademark holder to redistribute the icon under the GFDL. 15:25:20 spot marek: and honestly, I'm not sure that Fedora would permit that. 15:25:34 spot (since the Fedora logo is one of the icons)
Spec file updated, removed icons, http://mmahut.fedorapeople.org/reviews/astronomy-bookmarks/astronomy-bookmarks-1-2.fc8.src.rpm
I find no other problems. APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: astronomy-bookmarks Short Description: Fedora astronomy bookmarks Owners: mmahut Branches: F-8 InitialCC: astronomy-sig Cvsextras Commits: yes
Should we really be importing this before firefox is able to handle more than one bookmarks package? Is there a bug filed on that?
(In reply to comment #7) > Should we really be importing this before firefox is able to handle more than > one bookmarks package? Is there a bug filed on that? There's no bug. Discussion on #fedora-devel has been based on idea that the bookmark file is included in firefox itself, which is not true. The standard bookmark file is in separate package default-bookmarks and thus can be excluded from the spin.
Sure, but then they both provide the same files, so there should be an explicit 'Conflicts' here? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts "Keep in mind that implicit conflicts are NEVER acceptable. If your package conflicts with another package, then you must either resolve the conflict, or mark it with Conflicts:"
(In reply to comment #9) > Sure, but then they both provide the same files, so there should be an explicit > 'Conflicts' here? You're right, completely forgot about it. My spec file and SRPM are updated. Chris Aillon told me there are no plans to implement multiple-bookmarks-files capability into Firefox... So I guess this is our only solution even if it's ugly.
Yeah, pretty non ideal. ;( Oh well, sometimes thats the way it goes... cvs done.
Build. Thank you Lubomir and Kevin for this review.