Bug 251282

Thanks for submitting this.

These rpmlint warnings should be cleaned up...
# rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/noarch/x3d-dtd-schema-3.0-1.noarch.rpm 
W: x3d-dtd-schema wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/x3d-dtd-schema-3.0/x3d-schema-changelog.txt
W: x3d-dtd-schema wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/x3d-dtd-schema-3.0/x3d-dtd-changelog.txt

I'll do a full review this weekend.

I'm currently thinking I should probably change the package name here to push
the '3.0' into package name and just use a date as the version (like I already
do for x3d-xsl). There will be 3.1, 3.2, etc. releases of these DTDs; and they
should not obsolete one another.

Re: the rpmlint warnings, is it appropriate to process the files with dos2unix?
Or is some other mechanism preferred?

A bit more about additional DTD versions...

There are now, in addition to the 3.0 DTDs, 3.1 DTDs; and 3.2 DTDs are
forthcoming. The Web3D Consortium packages these separately. Should we compile
them into a single RPM package (i.e., "x3d-dtd-schemas"), or provide them in
separate packages (i.e., "x3d-dtd-schemas30", "x3d-dtd-schemas31", etc.)?

Another issue... While the Consortium fixes bugs in these DTDs in their revision
control, they do not appear to think it necessary to provide updated packages
with the fixes. My current strategy is to apply patches with the updates to the
packaged DTDs. Painful, but I don't have a better idea.

(In reply to comment #3)
> Re: the rpmlint warnings, is it appropriate to process the files with dos2unix?
> Or is some other mechanism preferred?

I personally prefer 
sed -i -e 's/\r//' myfile
to avoid adding another build dependency.

(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm currently thinking I should probably change the package name here to push
> the '3.0' into package name and just use a date as the version (like I already
> do for x3d-xsl). There will be 3.1, 3.2, etc. releases of these DTDs; and they
> should not obsolete one another.

I think it would also be reasonable to put them all in one package.

(In reply to comment #3)
> There are now, in addition to the 3.0 DTDs, 3.1 DTDs; and 3.2 DTDs are
> forthcoming. The Web3D Consortium packages these separately. Should we compile
> them into a single RPM package (i.e., "x3d-dtd-schemas"), or provide them in
> separate packages (i.e., "x3d-dtd-schemas30", "x3d-dtd-schemas31", etc.)?

(I should have read all your comments before responding!)

I like the idea of putting them all in one package.

> Another issue... While the Consortium fixes bugs in these DTDs in their revision
> control, they do not appear to think it necessary to provide updated packages
> with the fixes. My current strategy is to apply patches with the updates to the
> packaged DTDs. Painful, but I don't have a better idea.

That sounds fair to me.  This kind of behaviour is quite common.

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Re: the rpmlint warnings, is it appropriate to process the files with dos2unix?
> > Or is some other mechanism preferred?
> 
> I personally prefer 
> sed -i -e 's/\r//' myfile
> to avoid adding another build dependency.

And the packaging guidelines specially ask people not to use dos2unix...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines

Okay; at long last, an updated spec file and SRPM.

This packages both the 3.0 and 3.1 specs and DTDs.

spec: http://endoframe.com/x3d-dtd-schema.spec
SRPM: http://endoframe.com/x3d-dtd-schema-3.1-1.src.rpm

@Anthony
Are you interested in continuing with review?

(In reply to comment #8)
> Okay; at long last, an updated spec file and SRPM.
> 
> This packages both the 3.0 and 3.1 specs and DTDs.
> 
> spec: http://endoframe.com/x3d-dtd-schema.spec
> SRPM: http://endoframe.com/x3d-dtd-schema-3.1-1.src.rpm
> 
> 

Thanks Brandon.  Sorry for the long silence.

Which package should own /usr/share/xml/x3d?  If not this package, then it should depend on one that does.

Thanks,

AG

Some rpmlint output:

x3d-dtd-schema.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.0-1 ['3.1-1', '3.1-1']
x3d-dtd-schema.noarch: W: invalid-license Distributable

I think there's a real question about the license for these files.  The closest thing I could find to a license is the Web3D IP policy: http://www.web3d.org/cgi-bin/fetch/fetch.cgi?ipr  but I don't know if it really applies.

Can you do better than "Distributable"?

Thanks,

AG

Ping? Any progress here? Or we can close this review?

Stalled Review. Closing per:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
If you ever want to continue with this review, please reopen or
submit new review.