Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Review Request: xorg-x11-docs|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Mike A. Harris <mharris>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||David Cantrell <dcantrell>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2006-07-24 22:01:57 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:||199925|
|Bug Blocks:||174738, 188268|
Description Mike A. Harris 2006-07-24 08:24:13 EDT
Spec URL: http://mharris.ca/fedora/core/xorg-x11-docs/xorg-x11-docs.spec SRPM URL: http://mharris.ca/fedora/core/xorg-x11-docs/xorg-x11-docs-1.2-1.src.rpm Description: X.Org X11 protocol documentation and other technical documentation used by developers. This documentation was previously present in subpackages of monolithic XFree86 and X.Org as "XFree86-doc" and "xorg-x11-doc", but was missing from the Xorg X11R7.0 release. It was tarballed afterward, and made available for the Xorg 7.1 release. The package is 'noarch' now, which provides a huge disk space savings on our internal servers and mirrors as an added bonus. This package requires the new 'xorg-sgml-doctools' package, submitted as bug #199925 in order to build.
Comment 1 Bill Nottingham 2006-07-24 10:11:05 EDT
Comment 2 Jesse Keating 2006-07-24 10:51:30 EDT
- Obsoletes: XFree86-doc, xorg-x11-doc; Do we provide those in this package? Other than that, the only rpmlint errors are ignorable. Approving (if you address the above issue) Bill?
Comment 3 Jesse Keating 2006-07-24 13:02:52 EDT
Added to dist-fc6. Should this go into Comps somewhere? Please close when built into rawhide.
Comment 4 Mike A. Harris 2006-07-24 20:17:26 EDT
(In reply to comment #2) > - Obsoletes: XFree86-doc, xorg-x11-doc; Do we provide those in this package? No, but nothing should depend on them either. The packages didn't even exist in FC5, so if anything depended on them we probably would have gotten a bug report by now. I can add Provides anyway though if you prefer, just for completeness. ;) > Other than that, the only rpmlint errors are ignorable. > > Approving (if you address the above issue) All the X packages have "License: MIT/X11", however technically speaking different parts of X are under slightly different licenses. Individual source files are sometimes under a different license. The majority of all of the licences are the MIT licence, or very close clone of it, or of the BSD no-ad-clause license. If there's a generic text that should be used instead of "MIT/X11" for quirks of this nature, I can change it though.
Comment 5 Mike A. Harris 2006-07-24 20:26:32 EDT
Ok, I fixed the Groups field, and added the Provides suggested above, checked into CVS now.
Comment 6 Mike A. Harris 2006-07-24 22:01:57 EDT
Built in rawhide.