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=244314
Summary: Review Request: <matchbox-window-manager> - <Matchbox window manager> Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mpg@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/matchbox-window-manager.spec SRPM URL: http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/matchbox-window-manager-1.1-5.cvs20072402.7.src.rpm Description: <Matchbox is a base environment for the X Window System running on non-desktop embedded platforms such as handhelds, set-top boxes, kiosks and anything else for which screen space, input mechanisms or system resources are limited.>
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
mpg@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: <matchbox- |Review Request: matchbox- |window-manager> - <Matchbox |window-manager - Matchbox |window manager> |window manager
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora
mpg@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|medium |high Priority|medium |high
------- Additional Comments From mpg@redhat.com 2007-06-19 05:06 EST ------- Important for OLPC, upping the priority.
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
johnp@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |johnp@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From johnp@redhat.com 2007-06-19 16:57 EST ------- Taking this package
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
------- Additional Comments From johnp@redhat.com 2007-06-19 17:20 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=157419) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=157419&action=vie...) corrected .spec file
This fixes the rpm for rpmlint
- Fix buildroot - Add COPYING license file to docs - Added {} braces around % macros - Own {_sysconfdir}/matchbox directory - Own {_datadir}/matchbox
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
------- Additional Comments From johnp@redhat.com 2007-06-19 17:21 EST ------- Some outstanding issues before this can be approved
- Please repackage for version 1.2 which has been released - Please move the %{_datadir}/themes/ directories into %{_datadir}/matchbox/themes
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
------- Additional Comments From johnp@redhat.com 2007-06-19 17:31 EST ------- hmm, looks like I am incorrect about the themes/ directory. I'm not sure how ownership goes though
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
------- Additional Comments From johnp@redhat.com 2007-06-19 17:45 EST ------- Ok, filed a bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244932 on the filesystem package. Matchbox should Require: filesystem
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
------- Additional Comments From mpg@redhat.com 2007-06-19 19:02 EST ------- Updated to 1.2 and added req on filesystem.
http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/matchbox-window-manager-1.2-1.src.rpm http://dev.laptop.org/~marco/matchbox-window-manager.spec
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
johnp@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From johnp@redhat.com 2007-06-19 19:17 EST ------- - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Ok - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Ok - MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines. Ok - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Ok - MUST: The package must be licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Ok(GPL) - MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Ok - MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. Ok - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. Ok - MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). Ok - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. Ok - MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Ok - MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. (Extras Only) The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
Can not test as reviewer does not have access to other platforms.
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Ok - MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. Ok (no translations present) - MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is:
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig
Ok (No libraries) - MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. Ok (package not relocatable)
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The exception to this are directories listed explicitly in the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html), as it is safe to assume that those directories exist. Ok
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. Ok
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. Ok
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). Ok
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. Ok
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. Ok
- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity) Ok
- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. Ok
- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. Ok(No libraries)
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. Ok (No static libraries)
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). Ok (No pkgconfig)
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. Ok (no libraries) - MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Ok(No devel) - MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. Ok (No Libraries) - MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of Packaging Guidelines. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. Ok (no .desktop file) - MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. Ok - MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details. Ok - MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Ok
SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Ok. Included
- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Ok
APPROVED with one minor edit. Please add the full URL on the Source0 line for the tarball
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
mpg@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From mpg@redhat.com 2007-06-19 19:23 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: matchbox-window-manager Short Description: Window manager for the Matchbox Desktop Owners: mpg@redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: mpg@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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin@tummy.com
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-06-20 01:06 EST ------- Humm, if this package is important for OLPC, don't you want a OLPC-2 branch? Or is there a reason for only F-7/devel branches?
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
------- Additional Comments From mpg@redhat.com 2007-06-20 04:32 EST ------- I'll let John comment on this since I've been following the wiki tables: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OlpcFedoraPartnership
Anyway my feeling is that the less we diverge from FC-7 the better and matchbox is stable enough that going through the update process should not be a problem (we can always create an OLPC-2 branch later if necessary).
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
------- Additional Comments From johnp@redhat.com 2007-06-20 12:17 EST ------- It is important for OLPC but stable and useful for other projects therefor it should be built into F7. We don't expect to be updating this module much.
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2007-06-20 12:33 EST ------- ok, sorry for the delay. Just wanted to make sure. cvs done.
Note that you don't need to add owner to CC, they automatically get emails, and the branch is "F-7", not "FC-7". :)
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
------- Additional Comments From mpg@redhat.com 2007-06-20 12:51 EST ------- Am I doing something stupid or something is missing?
[marco@localhost F-7]$ make build make: Warning: File `matchbox-window-manager.spec' has modification time 2.5e+02 s in the future Created task: 43626 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43626 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 43626 build (dist-fc7-updates-candidate, F-7:matchbox-window-manager-1_2-1): free 43626 build (dist-fc7-updates-candidate, F-7:matchbox-window-manager-1_2-1): free -> open (ppc1.fedora.redhat.com) 43629 buildSRPMFromCVS (F-7:matchbox-window-manager-1_2-1): free 43629 buildSRPMFromCVS (F-7:matchbox-window-manager-1_2-1): free -> open (ppc2.fedora.redhat.com) 43629 buildSRPMFromCVS (F-7:matchbox-window-manager-1_2-1): open (ppc2.fedora.redhat.com) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 43626 build (dist-fc7-updates-candidate, F-7:matchbox-window-manager-1_2-1): open (ppc1.fedora.redhat.com) -> FAILED: BuildError: package matchbox-window-manager not in list for tag dist-fc7-updates-candidate
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: matchbox-window-manager - Matchbox window manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=244314
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
michel.sylvan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michel.sylvan@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Additional Comments From michel.sylvan@gmail.com 2008-01-25 18:48 EST ------- Anything being done with matchbox-window-manager?
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=244314
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pbrobinson@gmail.com
--- Comment #16 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com 2008-08-19 04:48:53 EDT --- I see this is in the distro, is there a reason the review request is still open?
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=244314
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #17 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com 2008-10-10 16:08:12 EDT --- Closing... is in rawhide...
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla