Fedora Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools
Initial Owner: firstname.lastname@example.org
* 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)
My assumption is that the Assigned To here is either,
1. Deceased, or
2. Not interested.
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 Unfortunately the Fedora version is about four years out of date.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.
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.
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 email@example.com as recently as 2010-08-24 09:11:27 EDT.
I'll try to help by marking duplicates. Sorry for the noise.
Cleaning up flags and assignments; hopefully someone will come 'round and review this trivial package.
And unblocking FE-Legal, since the updated version has a proper license.
== 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
I must have sat on the easy button and not noticed.