Bug 226638 - Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Adam Jackson
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 16:32 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2009-09-26 11:09 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-08-04 13:52:03 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
fedora: fedora‑review-


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 16:32:31 EST
Fedora Merge Review: xorg-x11-filesystem

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/xorg-x11-filesystem/
Initial Owner: ajackson@redhat.com
Comment 1 Thorsten Leemhuis 2007-02-04 10:38:00 EST
* I'm a bit unsure about this package in general -- is it really still needed?
FC5 has modular X already, and we don't support from older releases anymore
iirc. RHEL5 should have this package, too, and RHEL6 probably should not need it
anymore, too.

* why doesn't this package simply own some of the other important directorys
like /usr/lib/xorg/modules/

* Stuff like "cat > "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/${UPGRADE_CMD}" <<'EOF'" is disliked; it
should live in a separate file that it included as source

* Quoting the spec
{{{
# NOTE: Do not replace these with _libdir or _includedir macros, they are
#       intentionally explicit.
}}}
Nice, the comment helps -- but it would help more if the reason why its
"intentionally explicit" would be mentioned ;-) Ohh, it's explained later in the
spec; Not importatn, but maybe mention in once at the top of the spec file
properly might be the best

* rpmlint:
rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-filesystem-7.1-2.fc7.noarch.rpm
W: xorg-x11-filesystem incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.1-2.fc6 7.1-2.fc7
-> simply avoid mention the disttag in the changelog

W: xorg-x11-filesystem invalid-license MIT/X11
-> Would be MIT, but what actualy is licenced under MIT/X11 ? 

W: xorg-x11-filesystem no-documentation
-> acceptable

E: xorg-x11-filesystem standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/lib/X11
-> owned by package "filesystem", so not needed

W: xorg-x11-filesystem dangerous-command-in-%pre rm

rpmlint on ./xorg-x11-filesystem-7.1-2.fc7.src.rpm
W: xorg-x11-filesystem invalid-license MIT/X11
-> see above

E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/lib/X11"
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
E: xorg-x11-filesystem hardcoded-library-path in /usr/lib/X11
-> accpetable in this case

W: xorg-x11-filesystem no-%build-section
-> accpetable in this case

Stopping reviewing here for now until it becomes clear this is still needed
Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-01-16 11:01:41 EST
Alright, lets pick this old merge review up, because I think we can beat it into shape.

The biggest item that I see here is that there is an embedded update "script". That would make a lot more sense to have it live as a Source file, especially since it is not using any rpm macros. It would also simplify the rpm spec file quite a bit.

There is the question as to whether this script (and the %pre copy) are still necessary in Fedora. If you think so, please keep them, if not, please remove them both from the package.

Please add an empty %build section.

Also, %dir %{_bindir}/xorg-x11-filesystem-upgrade is just wrong. That's a script, not a directory.

The last issue is that there seems to be fair bit of directory ownership duplication in the xorg stack. 

/usr/lib/X11: filesystem, xorg-x11-filesystem

/usr/include/X11/: xorg-x11-filesystem, libfontenc-devel, libxkbfile-devel, libXdmcp-devel, libXfixes-devel, libICE-devel, libSM-devel, libXau-devel, libXt-devel, libXpm-devel, libXmu-devel, libXft-devel, libXv-devel, libXcursor-devel, libXvMC-devel, libXaw-devel, libXevie-devel, libXres-devel, libXfont-devel, libXcomposite-devel, libXrender-devel, libXdamage-devel, xorg-x11-xtrans-devel, libX11-devel, libXrandr-devel, xorg-x11-proto-devel

/usr/share/X11: xorg-x11-filesystem, xorg-x11-server-utils, xorg-x11-font-utils, xorg-x11-utils, imake, libX11, xkeyboard-config

If we don't need the upgrade script anymore, do we need this package anymore? Could we let filesystem own /usr/lib/X11 and /usr/share/X11, xorg-x11-proto-devel own /usr/include/X11 (and all those other dupes should Require: xorg-x11-proto-devel)
Comment 3 Adam Jackson 2009-07-23 10:06:28 EDT
Took another look at this, and I'm pretty sure we can just drop this package outright by now.  I've started removing all the explicit deps on xorg-x11-filesystem, and added /usr/share/X11 to filesystem.

The only question I have is how (or whether) xorg-x11-filesystem should be obsoleted so that it gets uninstalled from any existing systems.  I don't think it's strictly necessary, since it's not like it _does_ anything...
Comment 4 Tom "spot" Callaway 2009-07-23 10:11:51 EDT
Probably should just let filesystem Provide/Obsolete: xorg-x11-filesystem.
Comment 5 Adam Jackson 2009-08-04 13:52:03 EDT
Dead in rawhide, nothing Requires: it anymore and filesystem Prov/Obs it as suggested in comment #4.

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