[Bug 214124] Review Request: bogl - a graphics library and an Unicode terminal emulator

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: bogl - a graphics library and an Unicode terminal emulator


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214124





------- Additional Comments From colding at omesc.com  2006-11-10 04:44 EST -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> 
>   Jules, any comments?

Sure. I'll jump straight to your comments to my comments. This is, after all, a
learning experience for me.


> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> In my opinion, the following are okay.
> 
> = /usr/share/bogl
>   This is correctly owned by bogl-bterm
>
> = /usr/include/bogl
>   This is correctly owned by bogl-bterm

Hmm.. I was under the false impression that the right way to claim directory
ownership was to state the directory with the %dir macro first and later list
all files within that directory.

 
> = You are using: "Requires: bogl = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}"
>   This is correct when using epoch.
> 
> = I can't see any resaon why you need to use the epoch tag
>   For this package, epoch is needed as Epoch was already used
>   when this package was in Fedora Core.

OK, but epoch is generally frowned upon, right?


> = source files license issue:
>   Well, surely some of the source files are not explicitly
>   licensed, however, for now I trust that these are licensed 
>   under GPL accroding to debian/copyright.

OK, but was I correct in bringing the "issue" to light? I remember reading
somewhere on gnu.org that each and every file should explicitly state the
license terms as well as a copyright notice.


> = bogl does not use autoconf/automake
>   In my opinion, autoconf/automake should not be used unless
>   it is unavoidable and there is no problem for this package.

OK. It is just me beeing overly pedantic here...


> = There is a lot of compile warnings
>   Well, compilation warnings should be avoided as well as
>   possible, however my opinion is this is not a blocker 
>   as long as the warnings are not _crucial_ .
>   I maintain xscreensaver, of which the compilation warning canNOT
>   be avoided because of gtk2 "bug".

No, surely not a blocker. Miloslav also states above that he did review all of
those warning about a year ago, so they should be harmles.

Now of to pre-review some other unfortunate package :-)

-- 
  jules


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.