Bug 442244
| Summary: | Review Request: fotox - Program for improving image files made with a digital camera | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, rhbugs |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-07-24 11:49:26 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
Adel Gadllah
2008-04-13 10:05:53 UTC
Well, fotox is under rapid development and at the time I am writing this comment the latest version is 40. So: Would you ask the upstream developer to change installation scripts to autotool based ones ? - Current upstream-created "build" script does not accept compiler option - desktop file is created under an unexpected directory - Current installation process is rather manual Also - No license text is included in tarball (v40) (In reply to comment #1) Sorry for the delay. > Well, fotox is under rapid development and at the time I am > writing this comment the latest version is 40. So: Yeah now 41 is out. > Would you ask the upstream developer to change installation scripts > to autotool based ones ? > - Current upstream-created "build" script does not accept compiler > option Will ask upstream, if the don't do it I can patch it to use the flags. > - desktop file is created under an unexpected directory ? %{_datadir}/applications > - Current installation process is rather manual > Also > - No license text is included in tarball (v40) "MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc." http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines So should be fine. I will build and upload an updated package in the next days. (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > - desktop file is created under an unexpected directory > ? %{_datadir}/applications What I mean here that if you use "./build" script and execute "./build install", then this script tries to create desktop file under $HOME/Desktop. > > - Current installation process is rather manual > > Also > > - No license text is included in tarball (v40) > > "MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) > in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the > package must be included in %doc." > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines > > So should be fine. I know it. However I want you to contact with upstream. *** Bug 447829 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Any updates here? Well I sent a patch to upstream to add an autotools based buildsys because upstream was saying it was "too complicated". Upstream has yet to release a version with this patch. Will ping him next week. |