rpms/Terminal/devel Terminal.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 28 May 2005 06:55:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 00:02 -0400, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Author: kevin
> 
> > Requires: vte >= 0.11.11
> > Requires: exo >= 0.2.0
> I doubt these Requires are necessary, but haven't tried to investigate.

So, Kevin, please investigate. Since there is

  BuildRequires: vte-devel >= 0.11.11
  BuildRequires: exo-devel >= 0.3.0

already, it seems very likely that a dependency on libvte.so.? and
libexo.so.? will be automatic.

Explicit "Requires" should be avoided if they are redundant. They
make it more difficult to rename/move library packages.

The minimum versions in them get misleading or in accurate as soon as they
become out-of-date.  Look, for instance, you buildrequire exo-devel >=
0.3.0, but you require exo >= 0.2.0. That's a discrepancy already. Which
version is true? The first exo package you imported into Extras CVS is
0.3.0, so there is no older version anyway. The minimum version could
be dropped here.
 
> > %description
> > This is the Terminal emulator application. 
> 
> I find this sentence to be a pretty bold exaggeration.
> 
> This package might be __a__ terminal emulator, but it definitely is not
> __the__ terminal emulator.

Have read the followup to this already, but I agree. Lower-case
"This is a terminal emulator application" would be better, since the
name of the program "Terminal" is too generic and need not be repeated
in the description.

-- 
Fedora Core release Rawhide (Rawhide) - Linux 2.6.11-1.1363_FC4
loadavg: 1.19 1.37 1.40