Bug 226074
Summary: | Merge Review: libXft | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | ajax, jrb, sandmann |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | panemade:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-01-17 02:49:26 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 19:30:55 UTC
rpmlint on Binary rpm gave me E: libXft zero-length /usr/share/doc/libXft-2.1.12/NEWS => Remove zero-length files from installing them on system. W: libXft invalid-license MIT/X11 The value of the License tag was not recognized. Known values are: "AFL", "Affero GPL", "ASL 1.0", "ASL 1.0+", "ASL 1.1", "ASL 1.1+", "ASL 2.0", "ASL 2.0+", "APSL 2.0", "APSL 2.0+", "Artistic clarified", "Boost", "BSD with advertising", "BSD", "CeCILL", "CDDL", "CPL", "Condor", "Cryptix", "EPL", "eCos", "EFL 2.0", "EFL 2.0+", "EU Datagrid", "GPL+", "GPLv2", "GPLv2+", "GPLv3", "GPLv3+", "IBM", "iMatix", "Intel ACPI", "Interbase", "Jabber", "LaTeX", "LGPL+", "LGPLv2", "LGPLv2 with exceptions", "LGPLv2+", "LGPLv3", "LGPLv3+", "LPL", "mecab-ipadic", "MIT", "MPLv1.0", "MPLv1.0+", "MPLv1.1", "MPLv1.1+", "NCSA", "NGPL", "NOSL", "Netscape", "Nokia", "OpenLDAP", "OSL 1.0", "OSL 1.0+", "OpenSSL", "Phorum", "PHP", "Public Domain", "Python", "QPL", "RPSL", "Ruby", "Sleepycat", "SMLNJL", "SISSL", "SPL", "Vim", "VNLSL", "VSL", "W3C", "WTFPL", "wxWindows", "xinetd", "Zend", "ZPLv1.0", "ZPLv1.0+", "ZPLv2.0", "ZPLv2.0+", "zlib", "CDL", "FBSDDL", "GFDL", "Open Publication", "CC-BY", "CC-BY-SA", "DSL", "Free Art", "Arphic", "SIL Open Font", "Redistributable, no modification permitted", "Freely redistributable without restriction". =>update license tag as MIT only. (MIT looks ok but X11 is not recognized) W: libXft obsolete-not-provided XFree86-libs If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package must also be provided in order to provide clean upgrade paths and not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the provides. W: libXft obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-libs If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package must also be provided in order to provide clean upgrade paths and not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the provides. => add Provides: tag with versions check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-3cfc1ea19d28975faad9d56f70a6ae55661d3c3d ping? Can you update SPEC for further review? This is merge-review where maintainer should be assumed to be capable of solving simple packaging issues and not required to ask reviewer to give patch. sandmann, As you asked me to provide patch here it is --- libXft.spec 2007-08-22 02:05:45.000000000 +0530 +++ libXft-new.spec 2008-01-11 16:22:25.000000000 +0530 @@ -1,15 +1,14 @@ Summary: X.Org X11 libXft runtime library Name: libXft Version: 2.1.12 -Release: 3%{?dist} -License: MIT/X11 +Release: 4%{?dist} +License: MIT Group: System Environment/Libraries URL: http://www.x.org BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Source0: ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/individual/lib/%{name}-%{version}.tar.bz2 -BuildRequires: pkgconfig BuildRequires: xorg-x11-proto-devel BuildRequires: libX11-devel BuildRequires: libXrender-devel @@ -74,7 +73,7 @@ %files %defattr(-,root,root,-) -%doc AUTHORS COPYING README ChangeLog NEWS +%doc AUTHORS COPYING README ChangeLog %{_libdir}/libXft.so.2 %{_libdir}/libXft.so.2.1.2 @@ -95,6 +94,9 @@ %{_mandir}/man3/Xft.3* %changelog +* Fri Jan 11 2008 parag <paragn> 2.1.12-4 +- Merge-review #226074 + * Tue Aug 21 2007 Adam Jackson <ajax> - 2.1.12-3 - Rebuild for build id Review this patch and open ACL for this package if you are not have enough time to resolve this ticket. Why was AUTHORS and README removed from %doc in libXi, but not here? I think you really really need to either give up your package maintainance or look how reviewing of other packages done. Are you not aware of rpmlint command? Haven't you seen rpmlint output I posted in comment #1? That really says packaging zero length files is packaging error. This is the reason Merge-review tickets got open as core packages never gone through any reviews and also packaging guidelines formed in recent years. Why should we make packages to install zero-length files on fedora system and increase unnecessary file listing? CVS got SPEC cleanups changes now. APPROVED. |