Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 167889
Review Request: polyxmass-data - Contains configuration files describing polymer chemistry
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:13 EST
Spec Name or Url: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/polyxmass-data.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/polyxmass-data-0.8.6-1.src.rpm Description: polyxmass-data is a platform-independent package that contains all textual/graphical data required to run the GNU polyxmass software out of the box. Namely, GNU polyxmassdata contains configuration files describing polymer chemistry for a number of polymer types commonly found in nature: protein, dna, rna, saccharides. These polymer chemistry definitions are examples, and should be carefully reviewed by the user of the GNU polyxmass software, in order to make sure that they fulfill their task in the best way.
This data is necessary for polyxmass to be useful, so it is acceptable data - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc - spec file legible - source matches upstream - package compiles on FC4 i386 - no BR - no locales - not relocatable - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file needs work: - does not appear to own or require /usr/share/polyxmass - rpmlint: W: polyxmass-data non-conffile-in-etc /etc/polyxmass/polchem-defs/polyxmass-data-polchem-defs-cat W: polyxmass-data non-conffile-in-etc /etc/polyxmass/polchem-defs/polyxmass-data-polchem-defs-atom-defs-dic and a while lot of zero length .ogg files. Are the oggs necessary? The conffile can probably be ignored, it's really a config file.
Hm I don't know about the .ogg files but /usr/share/polyxmass is owned by polyxmass-bin and thus ok because polyxmass-data requires polyxmass-bin... =)
OK, polyxmass-bin owns /usr/share/polyxmass. And the zero length isn't a big deal. APPROVED Now waiting on polyxmass-bin.
(In reply to comment #1) > This data is necessary for polyxmass to be useful, so it is acceptable data > > - package meets naming guidelines > - package meets packaging guidelines > - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc > - spec file legible > - source matches upstream > - package compiles on FC4 i386 > - no BR > - no locales > - not relocatable > - no duplicate files > - permissions ok > - %clean ok > - macro use consistent > - code, not content > - no need for -docs > - nothing in %doc affects runtime > - no need for .desktop file > > needs work: > - does not appear to own or require /usr/share/polyxmass > - rpmlint: > W: polyxmass-data non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/polyxmass/polchem-defs/polyxmass-data-polchem-defs-cat > W: polyxmass-data non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/polyxmass/polchem-defs/polyxmass-data-polchem-defs-atom-defs-dic > > and a while lot of zero length .ogg files. Are the oggs necessary? The conffile > can probably be ignored, it's really a config file. If the files in /etc/polyxmass really are config files, perhaps then they should be marked as such? %config %{_sysconfdir}/polyxmass/polchem-defs* or %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/polyxmass/polchem-defs/*
I have been thinking about this for some time and while these are definitions used by the program I don't think they are config files in the rpm sense that comes to mind when thinking about %config.
(In reply to comment #5) > I have been thinking about this for some time and while these are definitions > used by the program I don't think they are config files in the rpm sense that > comes to mind when thinking about %config. Perhaps a better location for them would be %{_datadir}/polyxmass rather than %{_sysconfdir}/polyxmass then? Is that feasible?
Hm... I guess leaving them and marking them as %config is the best way to go after all if this is ok with you... Build for fc{3,4,5} Thanks for the review :)