Bug 1012837

Summary: Review Request: sxhkd - A simple X hotkey daemon
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Christopher Meng <i>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: otto.liljalaakso, pahan
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-08-02 00:45:51 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Christopher Meng 2013-09-27 08:50:44 UTC
Spec URL: http://cicku.me/sxhkd.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/sxhkd-0.4.3-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: sxhkd is a simple X hotkey daemon with a powerful and compact 
configuration syntax.
Fedora Account System Username: cicku

Comment 1 Antonio T. (sagitter) 2013-09-27 16:40:09 UTC
- Please, fix this URL:

URL:            https://githubs.com/baskerville/sxhkd

- The license of following files is unknown: 

/sxhkd-0.4.3/grab.c
/sxhkd-0.4.3/grab.h
/sxhkd-0.4.3/helpers.c
/sxhkd-0.4.3/helpers.h
/sxhkd-0.4.3/locales.h
/sxhkd-0.4.3/parse.c
/sxhkd-0.4.3/parse.h
/sxhkd-0.4.3/sxhkd.c
/sxhkd-0.4.3/sxhkd.h
/sxhkd-0.4.3/types.c
/sxhkd-0.4.3/types.h

Comment 2 Christopher Meng 2013-09-30 09:39:40 UTC
Fixed in the original URL.

Note for the license issue I will notify upstream, but I don't think it's a blocker.

Comment 3 Mario Blättermann 2013-09-30 19:22:31 UTC
Calling ldconfig in %post and %postun doesn't make sense here, because the package doesn't contain *.so files. This probably also applies to the deletion of the libtool archives.

Comment 4 Mario Blättermann 2013-10-01 20:23:25 UTC
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> - The license of following files is unknown: 
> 
> ...

The licensecheck tool is unable to find license headers, but it is declared in the LICENSE file as BSD.

Comment 5 Christopher Meng 2013-10-20 23:50:46 UTC
Sorry, forgot to cleanup the spec template.

Spec URL: http://cicku.me/sxhkd.spec
SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/sxhkd-0.5.2-1.fc21.src.rpm

Comment 6 Pavel Alexeev 2013-11-05 19:20:59 UTC
I'll review it.

Comment 7 Pavel Alexeev 2013-11-05 20:14:43 UTC
Rpmlint output:
sxhkd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hotkey -> hokey, hockey, hot key                                                                         
sxhkd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hotkey -> hokey, hockey, hot key                                                                  
sxhkd.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/sxhkd 0775L                                                                                      
sxhkd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hotkey -> hokey, hockey, hot key                                                                            
sxhkd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hotkey -> hokey, hockey, hot key                                                                     
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

sxhkd.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/sxhkd 0775L
Please fix file permission or add comment in spec why it should be there.

Comment 8 Pavel Alexeev 2013-11-05 20:22:50 UTC
As it is the daemon you should write and package systemd service file (hopefully with upstream author)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Systemd

Comment 9 Pavel Alexeev 2013-11-05 20:36:46 UTC
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6141387 generates empty debuginfo package:

$ rpmlint sxhkd-debuginfo-0.5.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
sxhkd-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package

Comment 10 Christopher Meng 2013-11-07 04:47:53 UTC
Reported upstream.

Comment 11 Pavel Alexeev 2016-01-02 22:43:02 UTC
Christopher do you plan continue??

Comment 12 Package Review 2020-07-10 00:48:44 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Comment 13 Package Review 2020-11-13 00:45:54 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.

Comment 14 Otto Liljalaakso 2021-07-02 19:04:22 UTC
This review request is really old. Do you still intend to complete it? If so, I can review, unless Pavel wants to continue. If not, please close this issue and make it block FE-DEADREVIEW, or do nothing, in which case automation will close the request in one month.

Comment 15 Package Review 2021-08-02 00:45:51 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.