Bug 226551
Summary: | Merge Review: xchat | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Christopher Aillon <caillon> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | bdpepple, caillon, fedora, kevin |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | bdpepple:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 2.8.2-12.fc8 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-07-03 20:30:22 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 21:18:19 UTC
Good: * Source URL is canonical * Group Tag is from the official list * All paths begin with macros * All directories are owned by this or other packages * Make succeeds even when %{_smp_mflags} is defined Must Fix: * Package should have ownership of %{_libdir}/xchat Minor: * Not preferred buildroot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * Duplicate BuildRequires: perl (by perl), glib2-devel (by GConf2-devel), pkgconfig (by GConf2-devel), gtk2-devel (by gtkspell-devel) * some rpmlint errors that aren't blockers: W: xchat incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.6.6-8 1:2.6.6-8.fc7 E: xchat tag-not-utf8 %changelog W: xchat non-conffile-in-etc /etc/gconf/schemas/apps_xchat_url_handler.schemas Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xchat Updated Fedora Owners: caillon, Fedora Remi Collet wants to comaintain X-Chat: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-May/msg01226.html and the current owner Christopher Aillon is OK with it: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-May/msg01204.html Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xchat Updated Fedora Owners: caillon, Fedora, Kevin.org Change of plan: Remi suggests that I should be a third comaintainer, and I'm OK with that, so please add me too while you are at it. ;-) Christopher Aillon said in the mail I quoted above that he'd be OK with any comaintainer, so I guess he won't object to 2 comaintainers either. ;-) > Must Fix:
> * Package should have ownership of %{_libdir}/xchat
Matthias Clasen fixed this in 1:2.6.6-9. Brian, can he consider this
approved/resolved now?
I mean: Brian, can _we_ consider this approved/resolved now? Brian Pepple: Ping? > > Must Fix: > > * Package should have ownership of %{_libdir}/xchat > > Matthias Clasen fixed this in 1:2.6.6-9. Brian, can we consider this > approved/resolved now? Those 2 minor issues have also been fixed in the meantime: > * Not preferred buildroot: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > E: xchat tag-not-utf8 %changelog I should have some time to look at this again tomorrow. Couple items still need to be fixed: 1. The spec doesn't install the desktop file, even though it ships one, which is a Must item. refer to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-d559ee7363418a5840ce63090c608c991cd39ce6 2. the desktop file patch (#10) contains some unnecessary (X-Red-Hat-Extras) and depreciated categories (Application), that will cause the build to error out in F8 due to the more recent version of desktop-file-utils available there. > 1. The spec doesn't install the desktop file, even though it ships one, which > is a Must item. Ugh, blame upstream for that one, the patch just changes the contents of the upstream .desktop file. I guess we'll have to work around that. I'll take care of that. > 2. the desktop file patch (#10) contains some unnecessary (X-Red-Hat-Extras) > and depreciated categories (Application), that will cause the build to error > out in F8 due to the more recent version of desktop-file-utils available > there. Application is again upstream's fault, X-Red-Hat-Extras wasn't in _my_ .desktop file which I was forced to revert... I'll fix the categories in the -redhat-desktop patch. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-commits/2007-June/msg03890.html https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-commits/2007-June/msg03891.html Successfully built for Rawhide. Looks like all the blockers I identified have been fixed, so I'll go ahead and mark this review appropriately. btw, Kevin, you may want to change the '--vendor fedora' to --vendor="", since this is a pre-existing package in Fedora, and by adding the vendor you'll be breaking menu-editing for existing users since it's based off of the desktop file/path names. I don't think I can install a .desktop file to itself. I'd have to remove the file as installed by upstream and reinstall it from the source tree. Is it really worth all that trouble, and also violating the guideline that .desktop files are supposed to have a valid vendor? I'm not going to push the .desktop file change to F7 updates (and I hope Christopher Aillon and Remi Collet aren't going to do that either) because this would break things, but for F7->F8, this kind of changes should be expected. I've seen other packages renaming .desktop files even in an update. Actually, it is in the guidelines that you shouldn't change the vendor_id during the life of the package. Since this package never set the vendor_id previously you want to make sure that is remain unset, hence setting it to ''. Refer to the last two lines in desktop-file-install usage in the package guidelines. I know, the guidelines contradict themselves... > If upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as <vendor_id>. > It is important that vendor_id stay constant for the life of a package. Now which is it? And what's the point of having merge reviews if we decide to keep existing packages the way they are, anyway? But whatever, I'm just going to install it with --vendor="" and wait for the bug reports about not honoring the first of the 2 contradictory lines coming in... :-( The .desktop file name is bug-for-bug-compatible now: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-commits/2007-June/msg04167.html Successfully built for Rawhide. imo, "life of package" probably should say "life of package in each branch/Fedora-release". Clear as mud? (In reply to comment #14) > I know, the guidelines contradict themselves... > > If upstream uses <vendor_id>, leave it intact, otherwise use fedora as > <vendor_id>. This rule refer to *NEW* packages in Fedora. > > It is important that vendor_id stay constant for the life of a package. > Now which is it? If the package is already in Fedora you cannot change the vendor, which is the case with xchat. IMHO fixing this sort of things is really what new releases are for. I don't think bug-for-bug compatibility is a good idea. I've also seen other packages changing the vendor name before. But it's back to the wrong name now in 2.8.2-12.fc8. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: xchat Updated Fedora Owners: caillon,Fedora,kevin.org Please change my e-mail address to lowercase, I changed it in the Fedora Account System to match Bugzilla, which now normalizes all e-mail addresses to lowercase. cvs done. |