[Bug 226455] Merge Review: system-config-date

Tue Mar 20 08:41:47 UTC 2007

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: system-config-date

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226455

nphilipp at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|kevin at tummy.com             |nphilipp at redhat.com

------- Additional Comments From nphilipp at redhat.com  2007-03-20 04:41 EST -------
I've changed the following in upstream CVS.

I'll assign this to me and build later when the translations have been updated,
then put it back to be reviewed again.

(In reply to comment #1)
> 1. Some of the translation files say:
> po/lt.po:# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package.
> Would be nice to say "system-config-date" there instead of PACKAGE?

Done. Note that there are other mentions of PACKAGE in there, but I'll leave
these to the translators, as they're really only cosmetic.

> 
> 2. Since redhat/fedora is upstream for this package, can you add
> a note as suggested in:
>
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#head-413e1c297803cfa9de0cc4c56f3ac384bff5dc9e

Done.

> 3. Please use one of the preferred buildroots, such as:
>    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

Done.

> 4. The desktop file is missing a valid Main Category, see:
> http://standards.freedesktop.org/menu-spec/latest/apa.html
> Suggest: System or Settings be added.
> Without this, this tool shows up under a "Other" menu in Xfce.

Done.

> 5. Why are you manually setting the mode of the man pages and pam files?
> Are they not installing with the correct mode?

Legacy, won't change that now as it might break things (if the Makefile doesn't
set these properly). Might change that when development for F8 opens.

> 6. Should add a
> rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> to the top of the %install section.

Done.

> 7. Are the Obsoletes still needed?
> Obsoletes: timetool
> Obsoletes: dateconfig
> Obsoletes: timeconfig
> Obsoletes: redhat-config-date

They don't hurt and someone might want to update from RHL something to FC7. This
will make a lot of issues for him/her, but at least that package will do the
right thing ;-).

> 8. Is the "Conflicts: firstboot <= 1.3.26" needed?
> If it still is, couldn't it be converted to a:
> "Requires: firstboot => 1.3.26" instead?

No. system-config packages shouldn't require firstboot at all. It is just that
they aren't compatible with older versions, thus the conflict.

> 9. The "Requires: python2" should probibly just be removed?

I've changed that to "python >= 2.0", someone might try to run that on a
python-1.5 based system.

> The pygtk2-libglade pulls in python.

Never trust on some package to pull in another when you're using it yourself ;-).

> 10. rpmlint says:
> 
> a)
> W: system-config-date incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8.90 1.8.90-1.fc7
> 
> This is probibly due to missing the version in many of the changelog entries.

Probably rather because I use upstream versions (i.e. without release tag) in
there. Won't change that, though ;-).

> b)
> E: system-config-date tag-not-utf8 %changelog
> E: system-config-date tag-not-utf8 %changelog
> E: system-config-date non-utf8-spec-file system-config-date.spec
> 
> Suggest: The spec file doesn't seem to be UTF8.
> Perhaps run iconv on the spec and check it in again to fix?

Ran recode on these files.

> c)
> E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided timetool
> E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided dateconfig
> E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided timeconfig
> E: system-config-date obsolete-not-provided redhat-config-date
> W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes timetool
> W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes dateconfig
> W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes timeconfig
> W: system-config-date unversioned-explicit-obsoletes redhat-config-date
> 
> See point 7
> 
> d)
> E: system-config-date file-in-usr-marked-as-conffile
> /usr/share/system-config-date/ntp.template
> 
> Suggest: You can't have config marked files in datadir.
> Either don't mark it as config, or move it to somewhere else?

Not marked as %config as it really isn't.

> e)
> E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/system-config-date/timezone_gui.py
> E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/system-config-date/dateBackend.py
> E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/system-config-date/timezoneBackend.py
> E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/system-config-date/scdMainWindow.py
> E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/system-config-date/zonetab.py
> E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
/usr/share/system-config-date/Clock.py
> E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/system-config-date/timezone_map_gui.py
> E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/system-config-date/system-config-date.glade
> E: system-config-date script-without-shebang
> /usr/share/system-config-date/date_gui.py
> 
> Suggest: All of these should be mode 644 since they are just imported by the
> main program? No need for them to be executable.

Not changing modes now as it might break things. Might do later.

> f)
> E: system-config-date no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
> 
> See point 6.
> 
> 11. 4 outstanding bugs. None of them look to be packaging related, but you
> might check them over and see if any can be closed while doing the rest of
> the cleanup for this review. 

Fixed some this weekend.

-- 
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.