Bug 226569 - Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools
Summary: Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom "spot" Callaway
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 21:21 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2010-09-02 18:50 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-09-02 18:50:53 UTC
Type: ---
tcallawa: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 21:21:20 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: xorg-sgml-doctools

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/xorg-sgml-doctools/
Initial Owner: sandmann@redhat.com

Comment 1 Roozbeh Pournader 2007-02-06 14:51:56 UTC
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 04:22:55 UTC
My assumption is that the Assigned To here is either,
1. Deceased, or
2. Not interested.

Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 15:19:12 UTC
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  Unfortunately the Fedora version is about four years out of date.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 15:52:24 UTC
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
   /usr/share/pkgconfig/xorg-sgml-doctools.pc

Pretty sure there's no point in adding a separate -devel pacakge just for this.

Comment 5 Jerry Amundson 2010-09-02 17:36:17 UTC
Or,
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 17:58:50 UTC
Cleaning up flags and assignments; hopefully someone will come 'round and review this trivial package.

Comment 7 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 18:02:59 UTC
And unblocking FE-Legal, since the updated version has a proper license.

Comment 8 Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-09-02 18:30:59 UTC
== Review ==
Good:

- 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

APPROVED.

Comment 9 Jason Tibbitts 2010-09-02 18:50:53 UTC
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.