Fedora Merge Review: xorg-x11-docs http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/xorg-x11-docs/ Initial Owner: sandmann
* package name Quoting the guidelines: "Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage." doc, not docs. Please rename and place proper obsoletes and provides with versions. * install location All doc files should go to %doc (e.g. /usr/share/docs) -- that holds true for files in seperate doc packges, too. Please fix. Having a symlink from %{_datadir}/X11/doc/ to the target directory in %doc might be acceptable if there is a good reasons for it (e.g. in case upstream is installing the packages there) -- I leave that discussion up to you * version There is a 1.3 version online already. Is that specific to X.org 7.2 (which is not in rawhide as of now)? If not it might be wise to update to it. * rplint rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-docs-1.2-4.fc7.src.rpm W: xorg-x11-docs invalid-license MIT/X11 -> probably MIT (see below) W: xorg-x11-docs unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-doc W: xorg-x11-docs unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-doc W: xorg-x11-docs unversioned-explicit-provides XFree86-doc W: xorg-x11-docs unversioned-explicit-provides xorg-x11-doc -> Please place a version on those (well, not for xorg-x11-doc, as that will be the new name for the package) rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-docs-1.2-4.fc7.noarch.rpm W: xorg-x11-docs incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2-4.fc6 1.2-4.fc7 W: xorg-x11-docs invalid-license MIT/X11 * MISC: * I don't like that tarname macro, as it should be no problem to hardcode that in the two places where it is getting used. * From %install: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/X11/doc/hardcopy/XPRINT Would be nice to know why that is done -- a small comment would be nice Ohh, actually there is a comment in the files section. Why no simply exclude the deleted files there below the comment? Well, maybe even better: It IMHO would make the whole specfile a lot more readable if the files section would just contain the topdir of the doc target dir (and the man files). rpm will then make sure that all files and dirs get included properly. But that's a matter of style. * the source package ships a README -- should we ship that? * there is no COPYING file in the package -- how to make sure it's MIT? Might be wise to contact upstream about it. * Besides that: package meets naming and packaging guidelines. specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. build root is correct. source files match upstream: f817c5df43817846c1b27bac83da74d7 xorg-docs-1.2.tar.bz2 final provides and requires are sane: no shared libraries are present. package is not relocatable. owns the directories it creates. doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. no duplicates in %files. file permissions are appropriate. %clean is present. no scriptlets present. no headers. no pkgconfig files. no libtool .la droppings. not a GUI app. not a web app. no open bugs
Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269 If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer.
I've got access for this package to update it to current packaging guidelines and an update that contains all the changes has been released before opening this bug.