[Bug 195292] New: Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

Summary: Review Request: Openbox
           Product: Fedora Extras
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]

[ Recreating this review request as Bugzilla's DB had hardware troubles which lost it. ]

I intend to unorphan and maintain Openbox in Fedora Extras.

Spec URL: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec
SRPM URL: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.rc2.1.src.rpm

Description: Openbox is a window manager for X11 designed to be
standards-compliant while staying fast and highly configurable.

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail] |[e-mail]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-14 14:11 EST -------
------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-12 19:55 EST -------
I don't know if this suggestion belongs in a package-review, but it'd be great
if you could include an openbox.desktop file to be installed in
/usr/share/xsessions (just like the fluxbox package does) so openbox can be
selected from the "Sessions" list in GDM, instead of having to edit who knows
what file by hand.

By the way, I'm glad you're going to unorphan this package. I love Openbox :)

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-12 22:12 EST -------
id also say a gdm entry is necassery.

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-12 23:31 EST
-------
Thanks. Added it in 3.3-0.rc2.2, as suggested.

Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec
SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.rc2.2.src.rpm

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-13 00:53 EST -------
Hi,

I could be wrong but as far as I understand the NamingGuidelines, this package
should have a Release tag similar to "0.2.rc2" instead of "0.rc2.2".

The relevant part from the NamingGuidelines:

"Release Tag for Pre-Release Packages:
   0.%{X}.%{alphatag}
Where %{X} is the release number increment, and %{alphatag} is the string that
came from the version."

Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-13 01:18 EST
-------
Jorge,

You are correct about that. I mistakenly thought otherwise; but I checked the
guidelines and that's what it should be. I've uploaded new sources to fix this:

Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec
SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.3.rc2.src.rpm

Thanks.

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-15 16:20 EST -------
Musts:

- rpmlint has two complaints:

$ rpmlint SRPMS/openbox-3.3-0.3.rc2.src.rpm 
W: openbox strange-permission openbox.desktop 0775
$ rpmlint RPMS/i386/openbox-*
E: openbox script-without-shellbang /usr/share/xsessions/openbox.desktop

the SRPM one is valid -- openbox.desktop doesn't need be executable in the
source tree and doesn't appear to need to be executable even when installed (gdm
still works with that session with it set to 0644)

the script-without-shellbang appears to be bogus

+ package name is fine
+ spec file name is fine
+ package meets packaging guidelines
+ license is open source
+ license is correct
+ license is included
+ spec is English
+ spec is legible

it could be simpler if the conditionalized epoch stuff were left out for the
-devel package, if the version macroization were calmed down (the package
releases every two years, so updating versions isn't that big a deal ;-), and if
the x requires stuff weren't conditionalized since you'll have separate specs in
each branch anyway. Not a big deal though

+ source matches upstream

$ md5sum openbox-3.3-rc2.tar.gz ../SOURCES/openbox-3.3-rc2.tar.gz
1ff100d27cc1f47dadebb884a696dac3  openbox-3.3-rc2.tar.gz
1ff100d27cc1f47dadebb884a696dac3  ../SOURCES/openbox-3.3-rc2.tar.gz
$

+ package builds
+ no archs excluded
+ BuildRequires complete
+ locales dealt with
+ shared libraries dealt with

- package dir ownership is broken for the theme files:

/usr/share/themes/Allegro/openbox-3/bullet.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Allegro/openbox-3/themerc
/usr/share/themes/Artwiz/openbox-3/themerc
/usr/share/themes/Blah41/openbox-3/themerc
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/close.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/close_hover.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/desk.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/desk_hover.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/desk_toggled.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/iconify.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/iconify_hover.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/iconify_pressed.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/max.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/max_disabled.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/max_hover.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/max_pressed.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/max_toggled.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/shade.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/shade_disabled.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/shade_hover.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/shade_toggled.xbm
/usr/share/themes/Om4Ob/openbox-3/themerc
/usr/share/themes/TheBear/openbox-3/themerc

needs to own Allegro, Artwiz, etc and openbox-3 dirs

+ no duplicated files

- permissions need fixing for openbox.desktop in SRPM and possibly in RPM

+ %clean fine
+ macros fine
+ package is code
+ no large docs
+ no inappropriate %doc
+ headers in -devel
+ .pc in -devel
+ correct library split between base and -devel
+ devel require of base is correct
+ .la excluded
+ no Gnome desktop-file needed
+ doesn't incorrectly own dirs

Shoulds:

+ builds in mock
+ software works

Looks pretty good -- only changes required are fixing theme file directory
ownership and the permissions on the desktop file

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |NEEDINFO_REPORTER

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-15 17:05 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> the script-without-shellbang appears to be bogus

Nope, see "rpmlint -I script-without-shellbang"

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-15 17:09 EST -------
> Nope, see "rpmlint -I script-without-shellbang"

I'm not sure if the desktop files for gdm session selection need to be
executable or not. If they don't, it's right. If they do, it's bogus

Every one on the systems I looked at was executable, but they appear to still
work if made non-executable....

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |195412
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER           |ASSIGNED

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-18 19:21 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> $ rpmlint SRPMS/openbox-3.3-0.3.rc2.src.rpm 
> W: openbox strange-permission openbox.desktop 0775

I based the permissions on the fact that both the gnome.desktop (provided in the
Core gnome-session package) and fluxbox.desktop (from fluxbox in Extras) both
install it as world-executable. I've changed that in %install to 0644
tentatively; but is there some specific guidelines on this? A search on the Wiki
didn't return anything helpful.
> $ rpmlint RPMS/i386/openbox-*
> E: openbox script-without-shellbang /usr/share/xsessions/openbox.desktop

Making it non-executable appears to have quieted rpmlint.
> it could be simpler if the conditionalized epoch stuff were left out for the
> -devel package

Done.
> if the version macroization were calmed down (the package
> releases every two years, so updating versions isn't that big a deal ;-)

Though I don't see anything particularly wrong with it, I'll see if I can clean
it up a little.
> and if
> the x requires stuff weren't conditionalized since you'll have separate specs in
> each branch anyway. Not a big deal though.

With all due respect, I like to keep the spec files between branches similar if
not the same, as it makes it simpler for me to maintain. Also, I wrote the spec
file thinking somewhat of portability to other RPM-driven distros too, and this
would help alleviate the dependencies there. Please let me know if this is
improper to do, and I'll unconditionalize the BR (using the xorg-x11-devel on
the FC-4 branch and the modular X.org stuff on FC-5 and higher).
> package dir ownership is broken for the theme files:
>
> [...]
> needs to own Allegro, Artwiz, etc and openbox-3 dirs

My reasoning for this is that other packages might also use themes named
Allegro, Artwiz, etc.; so by only owning the openbox-3 directories within each,
other such packages could interact with this in a well-behaved manner. Or, is it
preferred to share the directory ownership between theme packages?
> Looks pretty good -- only changes required are fixing theme file directory
> ownership and the permissions on the desktop file

Thanks for your comments and advice.

I posted and updated package (3.3-0.4.rc2) with the permissions issue fixed.

SRPM: http://www.thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.4.rc2.src.rpm
Spec: http://www.thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-18 19:26 EST -------
(That should be "I posted an updated [...]".)

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-19 09:37 EST -------
For the desktop file, I'd say make it non-executable until someone finds a
reason it has to be executable. I'll see if I can find more on that one

For the conditionalization, etc. that's personal taste -- whatever works best
for you as long as its consistent. Simpler's generally better, and worrying
about portability to other distros is generally more trouble than its worth, but
again that stuff is personal preference

For the dir ownership the problem is that currently no package owns those
directories. No ownership at all is a much bigger problem than multiple packages
owning them (though neither's ideal):

[kaboom@fc5test ~]$ rpm -qf /usr/share/themes/Allegro
/usr/share/themes/Allegro/openbox-3
file /usr/share/themes/Allegro is not owned by any package
file /usr/share/themes/Allegro/openbox-3 is not owned by any package
[kaboom@fc5test ~]$

That's the only must-fix left

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-19 21:30 EST -------
Now I see my mistake with regards to the theme ownership: I globbed the contents
of the directories, but not those directories themselves. Should I be owning the
entire theme folders (i.e., "%{_datadir}/themes/*/") or only the openbox-3
subdirectories in each?

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-20 13:36 EST -------
Something has to own:

/usr/share/themes/Allegro
/usr/share/themes/Allegro/openbox-3

(and likewise for every other theme)

It should probably be your package, unless theres some reason it can't be.
Openbox 3 themes aren't compatible with styles for blackbox or its derivatives
so you can't share them....

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-20 23:13 EST -------
Thanks. I've posted 3.3-0.5.rc2 which owns the entire theme directories created.

Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec
SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.5.rc2.src.rpm

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-22 16:24 EST -------
sorry, it looks like there is one more Requires needed -- /usr/share/themes
winds up unowned unless you have redhat-artwork installed

Other than that, looks good

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-24 18:30 EST -------
Thanks. I added that as a Requires for 3.3-0.6.rc2, as suggested.

Spec: http://www.thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec
SRPM: http://www.thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.6.rc2.src.rpm

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-26 22:24 EST -------
I noticed one final unowned dir and then it should be good:

/usr/share/gnome/wm-properties

That one I think you should just own -- it looks like each wm that supports
Gnome puts files in there, and since none of the Gnome packages appear to create
it, each wm will have to own it....

I'll go ahead and approve, so just fix that before you build

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-27 01:49 EST -------
Thank you for the review, Chris. I've added that directory to the %files section
in 3.3-0.7.rc2, which is what I will commit to CVS.

Spec: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox.spec
SRPM: http://thecodergeek.com/downloads/fedora/openbox-3.3-0.7.rc2.src.rpm

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE
OtherBugsDependingO|163779                      |
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-06-29 00:43 EST -------
Imported, cleaned up a bit, and built for FC-4, FC-5 and devel. Thanks for your
time!

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |163779
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-12-31 06:32 EST -------
Please do not remove the FE-ACCEPT blocker.  Thanks.

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox
Alias: openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Alias|                            |openbox

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox
Alias: openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-06-02 17:21 EST -------
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: openbox
Updated Fedora Owners: [e-mail]

I'm orphaning openbox, obconf, and obmenu as I no longer use them and feel that
my time is better spent dedicated to my other packages. Thanks.

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox
Alias: openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

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

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-06-04 17:53 EST -------
Orphaned.

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox
Alias: openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

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

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-06-13 04:06 EST -------
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: openbox
Updated Fedora Owners: [e-mail]

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox
Alias: openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

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

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: Openbox
Alias: openbox

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195292

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora
            Version|devel                       |rawhide

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=195292

Miroslav Lichvar  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #20 from Miroslav Lichvar  2012-02-21 03:53:15 EST ---
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: openbox
New Branches: el6
Owners: mlichvar splinux

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=195292

Miroslav Lichvar  changed:

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

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=195292

--- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla  2012-02-21 08:37:55 EST ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=195292

--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System  2012-02-23 14:12:59 EST ---
openbox-3.5.0-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openbox-3.5.0-4.el6

[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=195292

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Fixed In Version|                            |openbox-3.5.0-4.el6
         Resolution|NEXTRELEASE                 |ERRATA

--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System  2012-03-11 14:52:05 EDT ---
openbox-3.5.0-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.