Bug 226569 - Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools
Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Tom "spot" Callaway
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 16:21 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2010-09-02 14:50 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-09-02 14:50:53 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tcallawa: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 16:21:20 EST
Fedora Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools

Initial Owner: sandmann@redhat.com
Comment 1 Roozbeh Pournader 2007-02-06 09:51:56 EST
Random notes:
* License (MIT/X11 mentioned) cannot be confirmed as being free/open source, as
the only file that is shipped in the package lacks any license header and
nothing else in the package talks about the file's license. (BLOCKER)
* As the "make" line in %build does nothing, you may remove it.
* The package puts files in /usr/share/sgml without owning the directory or
depending on any other package that owns the directory. (BLOCKER)
Comment 2 Jerry Amundson 2010-09-02 00:22:55 EDT
My assumption is that the Assigned To here is either,
1. Deceased, or
2. Not interested.
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 11:19:12 EDT
The ticket shouldn't be assigned to the package owner anyway.  It should be assigned to a reviewer.

If someone wants to provide review commentary, I'm happy to fix the package up.

Regarding the license issue, the current version (1.5) of the package has proper license info in a COPYING file.  Unfortunately the Fedora version is about four years out of date.  I'd just update it if I had any clue what this package was actually for.

This package could simply own /usr/share/sgml, or depend on xml-common (which is tiny).

I think I'll just go ahead and update this package.  Given the recent FESCo decision, I can't then review it but hopefully someone else will.
Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 11:52:24 EDT
OK, I've updated the package in rawhide to address the review commentary from comment 1 but have not yet built it (in case someone decides that me messing with the package was a poor idea and wants to undo what I've done).  Updating to 1.5 added several new files, including a pkgconfig file, which unfortunately causes rpmlint to complain:

xorg-sgml-doctools.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package

Pretty sure there's no point in adding a separate -devel pacakge just for this.
Comment 5 Jerry Amundson 2010-09-02 13:36:17 EDT
3. Assigned To is busy, and has other priorities!

My apologies for the earlier remark - I have bugs with no activity for months and assumed otherwise. But I see updates by sandmann@redhat.com as recently as 2010-08-24 09:11:27 EDT.

I'll try to help by marking duplicates. Sorry for the noise.
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 13:58:50 EDT
Cleaning up flags and assignments; hopefully someone will come 'round and review this trivial package.
Comment 7 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 14:02:59 EDT
And unblocking FE-Legal, since the updated version has a proper license.
Comment 8 Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-09-02 14:30:59 EDT
== Review ==

- rpmlint checks return:

xorg-sgml-doctools.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
xorg-sgml-doctools.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean
xorg-sgml-doctools.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
xorg-sgml-doctools.src: W: no-%clean-section

These are safe to ignore.

xorg-sgml-doctools.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/share/pkgconfig/xorg-sgml-doctools.pc

Given that this package is really only useful for generating xorg docs, I think it falls into the following exception:

"A reasonable exception is when the main package itself is a development tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. "

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (MIT) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream (0e135d7c848d8b740df71895aa00ed8354406979e01f0df50a243fcd46452e20)
- package compiles on devel (noarch)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file

Comment 9 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 14:50:53 EDT
I must have sat on the easy button and not noticed.

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