Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/lx/liboobs.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/qt/lx/liboobs-3.0.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Wrapping library to the System Tools Backends Liboobs is a wrapping library to the System Tools Backends, it will provide easy to access GObjects to system configuration details, like users, groups and network interfaces, it will handle sessions with the backend and data consistency, too. Fedora Account System Username: raphgro Rawhide builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/raphgro/review/build/332378/
Rawhide builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/raphgro/review/build/332385/
It's unfortunate that the upstream developers couldn't resist a lame sexist joke. Does FPC have any sort of policy about this kind of thing?
libsexy and libsexymm are not forbidden, either. What's your point? Can you make a better suggestion for the package name? There's a guideline to use the upstream project name.
I have asked: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/7QPY4DY4HAX34N3NCTODXYNIDGWFREDZ/
Hi mulhern, thanks again for your interest. This lib depends on stb, could you do the review there, too and first? Otherwise, we need to keep with copr builds cause of the broken dependency till packages reach into testing.
If you want a distro *policy* decision, FESCo is probably the better body to query, FPC is more about technical-only packaging issues.
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1587
(In reply to mulhern from comment #7) > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1587 Commented.
Associated FPC ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/633
So the first question is, is it worth packaging? Last commit was in 2011, what makes it suddenly so desirable for Fedora in 2016? Two apparently reasonable PRs were opened in 2014 and completely ignored by the maintainers (eventually closed by the person who opened them). That's not usually a good sign. The fixes are small, but those are usually the easiest to merge if you are paying attention at all. system-tools-backends also stopped in 2011, but its history since then is more obscure.
Both dependencies are needed for lxqt-admin, bug #1343738. LXQt development is very active.
_Very_ active. They seem to be in process of removing liboobs dependency due to the fact that it is not maintained. See: 446891a14e5810c8fe395031008d406005b52dc7 and current README.
(In reply to mulhern from comment #12) > _Very_ active. They seem to be in process of removing liboobs dependency due > to the fact that it is not maintained. > > See: 446891a14e5810c8fe395031008d406005b52dc7 and current README. Thanks for the hint. I overlooked that and 'll apply the patch or use latest git snapshot.
I'm assuming this and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343733 can be closed, since the packages are not needed by lxqt-admin. On the other hand, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343608 is still open. It is _very_ simple, pure Python, and should be essentially a rubber stamp. Do you think you can do it?
Agreed. Closing.