Bug 198098 - Review Request: xarchiver
Review Request: xarchiver
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 217311
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: cq92j9y+rlkr0w
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-07-09 13:01 EDT by Damien Durand
Modified: 2008-08-02 19:40 EDT (History)
6 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-11-19 23:33:42 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Damien Durand 2006-07-09 13:01:17 EDT
Spec URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/xarchiver/xarchiver.spec
SRPM URL: http://glive.tuxfamily.org/fedora/xarchiver/xarchiver-0.3.3-1.src.rpm
Description: Xarchiver is a GTK2 archiver, create, add, extract and delete files in the above formats, arj,7z,rar,zip,tar,bzip, gzip and RPM
Comment 1 cq92j9y+rlkr0w 2006-07-09 18:23:13 EDT
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
Comment 2 cq92j9y+rlkr0w 2006-07-24 21:49:15 EDT
Damien:

I'll make a formal review of your package soon, but please try to correct the
issues I mentioned above.
Comment 3 Mamoru TASAKA 2006-10-02 07:19:44 EDT
Well, what is this review proceeding?

Changing the STATUS:
ASSIGNED -> NEEDINFO from reporter.
Comment 4 Mamoru TASAKA 2006-10-02 07:22:29 EDT
Sorry, I meant "is this review proceeding?"
Comment 5 cq92j9y+rlkr0w 2006-10-02 20:46:06 EDT
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).
Comment 6 Kevin Fenzi 2006-10-02 21:34:10 EDT
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?
Comment 7 Mamoru TASAKA 2006-10-27 02:31:23 EDT
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.
Comment 8 Christoph Wickert 2006-11-12 15:24:59 EST
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? 
Comment 9 Kevin Fenzi 2006-11-12 21:46:04 EST
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)?
Comment 10 Christoph Wickert 2006-11-12 22:46:43 EST
(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.

Comment 11 Patrice Dumas 2006-11-13 06:26:43 EST
(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.
Comment 12 Mamoru TASAKA 2006-11-19 23:27:09 EST
(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......

Comment 13 Mamoru TASAKA 2006-11-19 23:38:08 EST
Marking this as FE-DEADREVIEW.

If new review request of xarchiver is opened, please mark this as
DUPLICATE of the new bug.
Comment 14 Christoph Wickert 2006-11-26 17:49:28 EST
Done. Removed blocker on thunar-archive-plugin.



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

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