Hi Damien,

Some comments on your package:

- I think the description grammar could be improved. It says "Xarchiver is a
GTK2 archiver, create, add...", and also refers to "the above formats" (above
what? which formats?).
- You shouldn't own %{_datadir}/pixmaps as it is already owned by filesystem.
- You must own %{_datadir}/%{name}.
- rpmlint complains about the following:
  W: xarchiver mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (check the Version tag)
  E: xarchiver zero-length /usr/share/doc/xarchiver-0.3.3/NEWS

Damien:

I'll make a formal review of your package soon, but please try to correct the
issues I mentioned above.

Well, what is this review proceeding?

Changing the STATUS:
ASSIGNED -> NEEDINFO from reporter.

Sorry, I meant "is this review proceeding?"

Hi,

Damien told me (on IRC) that he's waiting for a new upstream release (I don't
really remember the reason why).

If Damien still wants to maintain this package, I'll do a review once the issues
in comment #1 are addressed (It seems to me those are the only issues keeping
this package from being approved).

We are working at getting Xfce 4.4rc1 in very soon... 
perhaps the version at: 
http://www.xfce.org/archive/xfce-4.3.99.1/src/xarchiver-0.4.0.tar.bz2

would be the upstream release being waited on? Or the perhaps the 4.4 final 
version?

Well, again is this review process proceeding?

More than 3 weeks has passed since the last comment was added.
I don't use Xfce by default, however my opinion is that
we should not wait for Xfce 4.4 final release.

I'd like to take over this package, since there has benn no feedback from Damien
for more then 4 months now and I really would like to see this package in Extras
soon. Could someone please review these files?

http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SPECS/xarchiver.spec
http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SRPMS/xarchiver-0.4.2-0.1.rc2.fc7.src.rpm

I have packaged xarchiver for a while now (I had not seen this review), but my
package looks quite different. I have split the package into xarchiver and
xarchiver-thunar-archive-plugin. The latter contains only one file
/usr/libexec/fedora-xarchiver.tap, a wrapper script for thunar-archive-plugin
(see bug #215241). I don't want xarchiver depend on Thunar.

Maybe it's easier to drop the sub-package, but then we'll have to include
fedora-xarchiver.tap in thunar-archive-plugin. Simply leaving it in the
xarchiver main package (without a dependency on the archive plugin) would lead
to an unowned /usr/libexec/thunar-archive-plugin/ if thunar(-archive-plugin) is
not installed. If the archive plugin is installed, this dir would be owned by
two packages. Bad Idea.

Opinions? Drop the sub-package and move the file over to thunar-archive-plugin? 

I'd like to see this package in as well... 

According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews
we should add a comment that this review is considered stalled, and will be
closed in 1 week if there is no response. Consider this that comment. ;) 

Christoph: Can you wait a week and if no response submit your package in a new
review request (after closing this one)?

(In reply to comment #9)
> Christoph: Can you wait a week and if no response submit your package in a new
> review request (after closing this one)?

Sure, will do.

(In reply to comment #8)
http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SPECS/xarchiver.spec
>
http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras/review/SRPMS/xarchiver-0.4.2-0.1.rc2.fc7.src.rpm
> 
> Maybe it's easier to drop the sub-package, but then we'll have to include
> fedora-xarchiver.tap in thunar-archive-plugin. Simply leaving it in the
> xarchiver main package (without a dependency on the archive plugin) would lead
> to an unowned /usr/libexec/thunar-archive-plugin/ if thunar(-archive-plugin) is
> not installed. If the archive plugin is installed, this dir would be owned by
> two packages. Bad Idea.

I don't think it is a bad idea in that case. Indeed, thunar-archive-plugin
has a plugin-script system. This allows for some flexibility we should 
take advantage of. In my opinion it should be possible to have a random 
package (preferrably a graphical unarchiver package ;-) drop a
script in /usr/libexec/thunar-archive-plugin/ even if thunar-archive-plugin
isn't installed. To still have right directory owning, there are 2 
possibilities:

* have all plugin packages own /usr/libexec/thunar-archive-plugin/
* add a filesystem-like package which holds that directory and that packages
  depend on.

Both options may make sense depending on the case, here I think having 
multiple owners is the cleanest way.

> Opinions? Drop the sub-package and move the file over to thunar-archive-plugin? 

No, drop the sub-package and own /usr/libexec/thunar-archive-plugin/.

In any case I don't think that having a package only for the 
thunar-archive-plugin plugin script makes sense.

(In reply to comment #9)
> I'd like to see this package in as well... 
> 
> According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/StalledReviews
> we should add a comment that this review is considered stalled, and will be
> closed in 1 week if there is no response. Consider this that comment. ;) 
> 
> Christoph: Can you wait a week and if no response submit your package in a new
> review request (after closing this one)?
> 

Now one week passed......

Marking this as FE-DEADREVIEW.

If new review request of xarchiver is opened, please mark this as
DUPLICATE of the new bug.

Done. Removed blocker on thunar-archive-plugin.



*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 217311 ***