|Summary:||Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||jamundso, j, sandmann, tcallawa|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2010-09-02 18:50:53 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 21:21:20 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/xorg-sgml-doctools/ Initial Owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
Comment 1 Roozbeh Pournader 2007-02-06 14:51:56 UTC
Random notes: * License (MIT/X11 mentioned) cannot be confirmed as being free/open source, as the only file that is shipped in the package lacks any license header and nothing else in the package talks about the file's license. (BLOCKER) * As the "make" line in %build does nothing, you may remove it. * The package puts files in /usr/share/sgml without owning the directory or depending on any other package that owns the directory. (BLOCKER)
Comment 2 Jerry Amundson 2010-09-02 04:22:55 UTC
My assumption is that the Assigned To here is either, 1. Deceased, or 2. Not interested.
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 15:19:12 UTC
The ticket shouldn't be assigned to the package owner anyway. It should be assigned to a reviewer. If someone wants to provide review commentary, I'm happy to fix the package up. Regarding the license issue, the current version (1.5) of the package has proper license info in a COPYING file. Unfortunately the Fedora version is about four years out of date. I'd just update it if I had any clue what this package was actually for. This package could simply own /usr/share/sgml, or depend on xml-common (which is tiny). I think I'll just go ahead and update this package. Given the recent FESCo decision, I can't then review it but hopefully someone else will.
Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 15:52:24 UTC
OK, I've updated the package in rawhide to address the review commentary from comment 1 but have not yet built it (in case someone decides that me messing with the package was a poor idea and wants to undo what I've done). Updating to 1.5 added several new files, including a pkgconfig file, which unfortunately causes rpmlint to complain: xorg-sgml-doctools.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/xorg-sgml-doctools.pc Pretty sure there's no point in adding a separate -devel pacakge just for this.
Comment 5 Jerry Amundson 2010-09-02 17:36:17 UTC
Or, 3. Assigned To is busy, and has other priorities! My apologies for the earlier remark - I have bugs with no activity for months and assumed otherwise. But I see updates by email@example.com as recently as 2010-08-24 09:11:27 EDT. I'll try to help by marking duplicates. Sorry for the noise.
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 17:58:50 UTC
Cleaning up flags and assignments; hopefully someone will come 'round and review this trivial package.
Comment 7 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 18:02:59 UTC
And unblocking FE-Legal, since the updated version has a proper license.
Comment 8 Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-09-02 18:30:59 UTC
== Review == Good: - rpmlint checks return: xorg-sgml-doctools.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install xorg-sgml-doctools.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean xorg-sgml-doctools.src: W: no-buildroot-tag xorg-sgml-doctools.src: W: no-%clean-section These are safe to ignore. xorg-sgml-doctools.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/xorg-sgml-doctools.pc Given that this package is really only useful for generating xorg docs, I think it falls into the following exception: "A reasonable exception is when the main package itself is a development tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. " - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (MIT) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream (0e135d7c848d8b740df71895aa00ed8354406979e01f0df50a243fcd46452e20) - package compiles on devel (noarch) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file APPROVED.
Comment 9 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 18:50:53 UTC
I must have sat on the easy button and not noticed.