Bug 192418 - Review Request: xbae - Xbae widget set
Review Request: xbae - Xbae widget set
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: José Matos
Fedora Package Reviews List
: 193772 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-05-19 11:59 EDT by Patrice Dumas
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-09-14 06:10:08 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Patrice Dumas 2006-05-19 11:59:53 EDT
SRPM URL: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xbae-4.60.2-1.src.rpm
XbaeMatrix is a free Motif(R) table widget (also compatible with the free
LessTif) which presents an editable array of string data to the user in a
scrollable table similar to a spreadsheet. The rows and columns of the Matrix
may optionally be labelled. A number of "fixed" and "trailing fixed" rows
or columns may be specified.

The XbaeCaption widget is a simple Motif manager widget that associates
a label with a child.

In addition the XbaeInput widget is being distributed, a text input field
that provides generic customised data entry and formatting for strings.
Comment 1 Patrice Dumas 2006-05-19 12:03:48 EDT
Once/if this package is accepted grace may be rebuilt against it, I tested
that grace builds against the exterenal Xbae, but not that it runs.
Comment 2 Tobias Oed 2006-06-01 12:03:40 EDT
I packaged version 4.60.4 and submitted it for review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193772 and just now saw
your submission. I used the spec file that came with the xbae that used to be in
fedora 1. Not sure what to do about these duplicates.
Comment 3 Tobias Oed 2006-06-01 12:19:20 EDT
*** Bug 193772 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Patrice Dumas 2006-06-02 11:58:56 EDT
srpm for the new version, with the .m4 file packaged and new summary

Comment 5 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-25 05:46:14 EDT
Updated srpm, such that xbae don't depend on Wcl


- remove dependency on Wcl-devel (was only of use for an example)
- clean docs
Comment 6 José Matos 2006-08-29 17:16:56 EDT
I will review this package.

One question before starting, why do we need automake?

# for the aclocal directory
Requires:       automake

I am aware that automake is not as bad as autoconf, or is the other way 
around... ;-)
Comment 7 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-29 17:22:20 EDT
It is for the aclocal directory detection which is done 
by calling aclocal which is part of automake. Moreover
/usr/share/aclocal/ is in that package. 
Comment 8 José Matos 2006-08-29 17:55:41 EDT
You are right, my mistake. The issue I was addressing relates with automake
as BuildRequires and not Requires. I was wrong, apologies for that.

Here I get:
$ rpm -qf /usr/share/aclocal/

$ rpm -q --requires libXaw-devel
libXaw = 1.0.1-1.2
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0.99.2-3

So it seems that libXaw-devel is claiming /usr/share/aclocal/ wrongly. I 
should probably fill this as a packaging bug.
Comment 9 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-31 04:21:07 EDT
New version

- rebuild against lesstif
- add Obsolete/Provides for Xbae

As a side note, I think that grace won't have to be modified otherwise
than BuildRequiring xbae-devel instead of openmotif-devel once xbae 
is in, to switch to using lesstif.
Comment 10 Tobias Oed 2006-08-31 05:47:46 EDT
What is the motivation for switching from openmotif to lesstif? From 
my experience lesstif is more buggy than openmotif.
Comment 11 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-31 05:53:07 EDT
You could have a look at Bug #202527, in short openmotif isn't OSI
compatible, this conflicts with fedora goals. There are many threads
on mailing lists also if you want further references.
Comment 12 José Matos 2006-09-08 12:45:01 EDT
Review for release 3:
* RPM name is OK
* Source xbae-4.60.4.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint of xbae looks OK
* rpmlint of xbae-devel looks OK
* File list of xbae looks OK
* File list of xbae-devel looks OK
* License is OK (BSD), text in %doc, matches source
* Spec is readable and written in American English
* no missing BR
* no unnecessary BR

Any reason for
Obsoletes:      Xbae < %{version}-%{release}
Comment 13 Patrice Dumas 2006-09-08 16:26:23 EDT
(In reply to comment #12)
> Review for release 3:
> Notes:
> Any reason for
> Obsoletes:      Xbae < %{version}-%{release}

It is to replace Xbae packages that have been provided up to
fedora core 2.

Comment 14 José Matos 2006-09-09 06:09:20 EDT
Ah, I see now. What I did not notice the first time is that Xbae is a 
capitalized version of xbae. That is why it was weird. You could add a comment 
there saying this, it is easier to understand that way.

* there are no duplicates in %files and all the directories are owned
* scripts are reasonable and according to the rules
* there are no static libraries
* there are no language specific files
* there is no need for a desktop file
* follows the packaging guidelines

Comment 15 Patrice Dumas 2006-09-14 06:10:08 EDT
Built in devel, added to owners.

Do you want a branch for FC5 for grace? Otherwise I don't think
it is necessary to have a FC5 branch, since there hasn't been
xbae since FC1, without anybody complaining...
Comment 16 José Matos 2006-09-14 07:15:00 EDT
Please do.

I would like, as far as possible, to maintain the same spec for different 

Thank you.
Comment 17 Patrice Dumas 2006-09-18 04:33:54 EDT

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.