[Bug 513797] Review Request: gnome-applet-cpufire - GNOME panel applet showing the CPU load as a fire

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=513797


Edwin ten Brink <fedora at tenbrink-bekkers.nl> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #9 from Edwin ten Brink <fedora at tenbrink-bekkers.nl>  2009-07-31 16:18:39 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > NOT OK: I agree that you need libgnomeui-devel, but libgnomeui-devel gets
> > pulled in by gnome-panel-devel. Again, as per
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires, it should
> > be removed. 
> 
> You are confusing Requires and BuildRequres here. rpm has a dependency
> generator for Requires, but not for BuildRequires.
> 
> > We implicitly agreed on this during the review of
> > gnome-applet-bubblemon (bug 497525):
> 
> No, we agreed on leaving gettext in although it's already pulled in by
> intltool. That's just like gnome-panel-devel and libgnomeui-devel, but I can
> remove it if you insist on doing so.

That's what we agreed then explicitly, indeed. Implicitly we agreed (i.e. I
wrote it, you had no comment) on the following lines (lines 27-28):
# libgnomeui gets pulled in by gnome-panel-devel
#BuildRequires:  libgnomeui-devel

And I unfortunately have to disagree with you. If you look at the root.log for
gnome-applet-bubblemon
(http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/gnome-applet-bubblemon/2.0.14/1.fc11/data/logs/i586/root.log)
you'll see the following lines:
DEBUG util.py:256:  Installing for dependencies:
(...)
DEBUG util.py:256:   libgnomeui-devel            i586   2.24.1-1.fc11          
        build 330 k

Nevertheless OK: Since it is a BuildRequires and not a Requires, you could
leave it as it is according to the motivation below. My personal preference is
to keep the explicit (Build)Requires as clean as possible, but it seems the
Guidelines give a little leeway on this point.

> > If you indeed require >= 2.6, then this version is also 'very
> > old'. Fedora 7 included 2.18.3-1. As per
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Explicit_Requires, you
> > should drop te version requirement.
> 
> Again, these are BuildRequires. I want to make live easier for people who are
> rebuilding our packages - even on ancient distros if they want.

OK, since it is indeed a BuildRequires. I must mention I did not read that
explicitly from the Packaging Guidelines, though on careful inspection,
BuildRequires is discussed separately from the Requires, which includes the
statement. I stand corrected and I'll accept your motivation.

> > - contact the upstream author to see if he would include the text and actions
> > as mentioned in GPLv2 (lines 282-311) in the next release  
> 
> I did twice, but no avail.  

OK, alas then.



With this, all outstanding issues have been resolved or otherwise agreed upon,
therefore the package is APPROVED. Good luck.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.