[Bug 226641] Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel

[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: Merge Review: xorg-x11-proto-devel


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226641


notting at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |notting at redhat.com




------- Additional Comments From notting at redhat.com  2007-02-27 23:47 EST -------
MUST Items:

 - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines ***

Package is an agglomeration of 29 source tarballs. I'm not going to tell you to
split it; so it's OK with me, even if the name doesn't match a particular
upstream tarball.

 - Spec file matches base package name. - OK
 - Spec has consistant macro usage. - OK
 - Meets Packaging Guidelines. - OK
 - License - MIT/X11 (albeit with many copyright holders )
 - License field in spec matches - ***

Should be changed to 'MIT/X11' (to match other X packages) or 'MIT' (to pacify
rpmlint).

 - License file included in package ***

Please include the various module copying. Yes, this is a mess. I
suggest in the build loop adding a:

 mv COPYING COPYING-${dir%%-*}

and adding a %doc */COPYING* directive.

 - Spec in American English - OK
 - Spec is legible. - OK
 - Sources match upstream md5sum: - OK (that was fun)

 - BuildRequires correct - OK
 - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. - OK
 - Package has a correct %clean section. - OK
 - Package has correct buildroot - OK
 - Package is code or permissible content. - OK
 - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. - OK

 - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig - ***

Should require pkgconfig.

 - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. - OK
 - Package has no duplicate files in %files. - OK
 - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. - OK
 - Package owns all the directories it creates. - ***

A Requires on pkgconfig should handle %{_libdir}/pkgconfig

 - No rpmlint output. - ***

Source rpmlint:
W: xorg-x11-proto-devel invalid-license The Open Group License

See above.

W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes XFree86-devel
W: xorg-x11-proto-devel unversioned-explicit-obsoletes xorg-x11-devel

These aren't coming back, so it's OK with me. However, it's safer to add
a version for the last version of each.

W: xorg-x11-proto-devel mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 89, tab: line 73)

Feel free to fix if you want.

Binary rpmlint:

W: xorg-x11-proto-devel invalid-license The Open Group License

See above.

E: xorg-x11-proto-devel obsolete-not-provided XFree86-devel
E: xorg-x11-proto-devel obsolete-not-provided xorg-x11-devel

Since this was a package split, this package alone does not provide the
functionality of xorg-x11-devel, etc. (no libX11, libXext, etc.) So this should
be OK.

E: xorg-x11-proto-devel no-binary

Not a bug.

SHOULD Items:

 - Should build in mock. - OK
 - Should have sane scriptlets. - OK
 - Should have dist tag - OK
 - Should package latest version - didn't check
 - check for outstanding bugs on package. (For core merge reviews) ***

Bug 229336 should be handled. Adding a simple:

%doc randrproto-*/randrproto.txt damageproto-*/damageproto.txt

along with a "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/doc" in %install should handle it.


-- 
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.