Spec URL: http://endoframe.com/x3d-xsl.spec SRPM URL: http://endoframe.com/x3d-xsl-20070723-1.src.rpm Description: XSL stylesheets for transforming X3D XML (model/x3d+xml) to VRML97 (model/vrml) and VRML-syntax X3D (model/x3d+vrml).
I think the license should probably be BSD (from reading the style sheet contents). Thanks for submitting this. I'll do a full review this weekend.
(just adding myself to CC as because of future xmlto X3D support) One thing I see is missing Requires(post,postun) for libxml2 (usage of /usr/bin/xmlcatalog)
Thanks; and sorry for the delay following up on this. I'll have updated packages for x3d-dtd-schema (bug 251282) available soon; and I'll follow up with updates to this one.
I have posted updated versions of the spec and SRPM that include the Licences and Requires changes. The URLs are the same.
Aaaah, now I see ugly bad thing - which I had in docbook-styles-xsl when I dropped release from dir. Your postun will unregister xsl stylesheets during update (when only release changes and version is still the same). I recommend to use $1 value ... (docbook-style-xsl style) it means: %postun # remove entries only on removal of package if [ "$1" = 0 ]; then CATALOG=%{_sysconfdir}/xml/catalog %{_bindir}/xmlcatalog --noout --del \ "file://%{_datadir}/xml/x3d/xsl-stylesheets-%{version}" $CATALOG fi
Okay; I don't mind adding that; but the removal does seem benign. Won't %post run and re-add the entries in that case?
When updating by RPM -U sequence is following : 1)post of new package 2)postun of old package And because of texts in catalogs are the same, postun of old package will unregister catalogs from post of new package (when release is increased, but version is the same). I broke by exactly same thing F8 and F7 docbook-style-xsl ... because I dropped release from dir - and this behaviour has shown. You could check this by easy thing ... do not change your spec, and run rpm -U --force x3d-xsl-20070723-1.rpm when x3d-xsl is installed. Then check /etc/xml/catalog for x3d-xsl entries - and you will see they are gone. Will appear in the next forced update again.
Thanks for the explanation. I've updated the spec and SRPM with that change.
@Braden Waiting long for updates ? Will be closed if not updated within a week.
I guess we are not waiting for Braden's updates (spec and SRPM was updated and updated version is available on location from Description) but we are waiting for Anthony's review promised in comment #1. Maybe someone else should take this review (I could do that, but I don't know if it is good idea since I would like to co-maintain this package once it will reach Fedora). So moving needinfo to Anthony : Do you still have time to do this review? Otherwise I will try to find someone else for it.
I will review this this week. Thanks.
Anthony apperently do not have much time :) Moving it to NEW so somebody else can pickup this review.
Given that it's been nearly five years, I'd like to make sure that the submitter is still around before having this drop back into the review queue. Braden, please just reply (which should clear the NEEDINFO flag) and this will re-enter the queue.
No response for years. Closing. Feel free to reopen if you want to continue.