no xfce for FC4?

Kevin Fenzi kevin-fedora-extras at
Tue Mar 8 22:31:13 UTC 2005

Hash: SHA1

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Callaway <tcallawa at> writes:

Tom> On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 12:35 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> I'm hoping to get some good feedback from the specs/packages and
>> find someone interested in sponsoring me to maintain the xfce
>> packages in fedora extras.

Tom> I'm not an xfce user, but I took the time tonight to download
Tom> your SRPMs to review them. A few items of note:

Thanks for the time and feedback! 
Perhaps we will convert you to using Xfce? :) 

Tom> All packages:

Tom> -Source0:
Tom> +Source:

Tom> Fixing the link is good, but I'd prefer you kept the
Tom> Source0. Yes, its purely stylistic, but it sets a good example
Tom> for other packagers who have multiple sources, and helps avoid
Tom> things like:

Tom> Source: foo.tar.gz Source43: foobar.tar.gz

Tom> Start at 0 and increment as needed.

ok. I have always done just "Source" when there is only one Source
file, but you are probibly right that it's better for

I have changed all the spec files to use 'Source0:'

Tom> In libxfce4util:
Tom> -License: BSD +License: BSD LGPL
Tom> Can you change that to BSD and LGPL (its not a true dual license,
Tom> your clarification in the %changelog is good).

ok. Done. 

Tom> xfce4, xffm, xfprint, xfwm4, (and others?) seem to have lost
Tom> %find_lang %{name}. Is it no longer properly internationalized in
Tom> 4.2.*?  (This seems to be a regression of

Those are new packages I used the upstream specs to start from. 
It was my fault for not adding in the find_lang. :( 

Tom> Note to new packagers: You should be using: %find_lang %{name}
Tom> (in %{install}) and %files -f %{name}.lang (instead of just
Tom> %files)

Tom> to package locales properly, not with:

Tom> %{_datadir}/locale/*/*/

Perhaps that should be added to the wiki in the packages hints?

Tom> Kevin, please run through all your srpms and make sure that
Tom> %find_lang is being used where relevant.

I fixed:


Note that I am still seeing the following kinds of errors from

E: xfcalendar invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/nb_NO/LC_MESSAGES/
E: xfcalendar invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/pt_PT/LC_MESSAGES/
E: xfce4-appfinder invalid-lc-messages-dir /usr/share/locale/pt_PT/LC_MESSAGES/

Are those invalid locales?

Tom> xffm-icons seems to be missing altogether. If its been sucked
Tom> into the main xffm package, please add this to the xffm spec:

Tom> Provides: xffm-icons = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes:
Tom> xffm-icons <= 4.0.(whatever the last xffm-icons package released
Tom> was)

Good catch. Oddly enough, it looks like there isn't a 4.2.0 version of
the xffm-icons provided upstream. The 4.0.6 version looks to be what
should be used. So, that package can stay the same as it was in the
4.0.6 version. I will import it into my tree however. 

Ok, it should be there now. 

Tom> xfprint, gtk-xfce-engine, and xfwm4 (and any others I might have
Tom> missed): drop the INSTALL from %doc, it wastes space (assuming
Tom> that it is the cookie cutter INSTALL file, if not, it can stay).

ok, They are all using the Generic one. I have removed install from: 


Tom> All packages: Be consistent with naming and case inside spec
Tom> (with exception of package names). Sometimes, its "XFce",
Tom> sometimes "Xfce", other times "xfce". The website says "Xfce",
Tom> you should probably use that.

ok. All of them that I could find have been changed to Xfce. 

Tom> xfwm4-themes:
Tom> -Summary: Themes for xfwm4 +Summary: Additionnal themes for xfwm4
Tom> Spell-check, please. "Additional". :)

Oops. ;) 

Thats in the upstream spec file, BTW. 
I am planning on submitting back a bunch of fixes to the upstream
specs if they are interested in them. 

Tom> Terminal:
Tom> "...with some new ideas and features that makes it unique among X
Tom> terminal emulators" (change "makes it" to "make it")


Tom> All packages (with libraries):
Tom> If the package is adding new libraries on install (or removing
Tom> old libraries on uninstall/upgrade), you need to have:

Tom> %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
Tom> %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

Tom> Check your packages, I don't see these being used anywhere.

They are in a number of the packages: 

dbh/dbh.spec:%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
dbh/dbh.spec:%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
exo/exo.spec:%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
exo/exo.spec:%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
libxfce4mcs/libxfce4mcs.spec:Prereq: /sbin/ldconfig
libxfce4mcs/libxfce4mcs.spec:%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
libxfce4mcs/libxfce4mcs.spec:%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
libxfce4util/libxfce4util.spec:Prereq: /sbin/ldconfig
libxfce4util/libxfce4util.spec:%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
libxfce4util/libxfce4util.spec:%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
libxfcegui4/libxfcegui4.spec:Prereq: /sbin/ldconfig
libxfcegui4/libxfcegui4.spec:%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
libxfcegui4/libxfcegui4.spec:%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
xffm/xffm.spec:Prereq: /sbin/ldconfig
xffm/xffm.spec:%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
xffm/xffm.spec:%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

It's worth noting here that rpmlint complains about that. It says that
post and postun are empty. 

I think I have all the packages that have libraries doing that. There
are some packages that have plugins, but those shouldn't need ldconfig
to run to pick up. 

Tom> xffm:

Tom> You're missing a patch that Fedora Core had in the 4.0 series,
Tom> that still seems relevant in 4.2. (forgive the whitespace
Tom> mangling)

Tom> xffm-4.0.5-rpath.patch

Tom> --- xffm-4.0.5/configure.orig 2004-05-13 14:42:21.764371688 +0200
Tom> +++ xffm-4.0.5/configure 2004-05-13 14:44:42.109609434 +0200 @@
Tom> -35263,7 +35263,7 @@
Tom>              echo "$as_me:$LINENO: checking DBH_LIBS" >&5 echo
Tom> $ECHO_N "checking DBH_LIBS... $ECHO_C" >&6 -
Tom> DBH_LIBS=`$PKG_CONFIG --libs "dbh-1.0 >= 1.0"` +
Tom> DBH_LIBS=`$PKG_CONFIG --libs-only-l "dbh-1.0 >= 1.0"` echo
Tom> "$as_me:$LINENO: result: $DBH_LIBS" >&5 echo "${ECHO_T}$DBH_LIBS"
Tom> >&6 else

Yeah, I had totally missed the xffm spec from fc3-devel, so I didn't
see that patch. I have moved in the xffm spec and readded that patch

Tom> ....

Tom> It might seem like a lot, but the packaging looks pretty good,
Tom> aside from the relatively minor issues I caught in initial
Tom> review. Make the changes, post them again, I'll eyeball once
Tom> more, then do build testing.  If all continues to go well, you've
Tom> got yourself a sponsor. :)


I have rebuilt all the src.rpms and fc3-RPMS for all the packages
now. I upped the release number in the case of packages where I made
changes. Not sure if I had to do that since they aren't released, but
would help anyone who picked up the last round of packages before
these changes. 

Everyone feel free to take a look and let me know if you spot anything

If everything looks good and the sponsorship is a go, let me know and
I can move on to faxing in the CVS app. ;) 

Tom> Thanks for taking the time to package this,

No problem. Thanks for the excellent feedback. 

Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <>


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list