[Bug 225629] New: Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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=225629

Summary: Merge Review: bug-buddy
           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]
                CC: [e-mail]

Fedora Merge Review: bug-buddy

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/bug-buddy/
Initial Owner: [e-mail]

[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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: Merge Review: bug-buddy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-02 14:25 EST -------
it uses %makeinstall .  I'm going to change it to use make install
DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT

[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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: Merge Review: bug-buddy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-02 14:35 EST -------
there is some cruft:

## http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89356
perl -pi -e
's/Categories=Application;Development$/Categories=Application;Development;/'
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/applications/*

that should just get pulled out.

[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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: Merge Review: bug-buddy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-02 14:47 EST -------
I'm going to remove --vendor gnome from the desktop-file-install call. It
doesn't serve any useful purpose and is only there because historically it's
been a required command-line argument.

I've just removed that requirement upstream.

[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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: Merge Review: bug-buddy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-02 14:57 EST -------
getting rid of --add-category X-Red-Hat-Extra .  We don't use that anymore afaik.

[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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: Merge Review: bug-buddy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-03 18:14 EST -------
Good:
* Source URL is canonical
* Upstream source tarball verified
* Group Tag is from the official list
* Buildroot has all required elements
* All paths begin with macros
* All directories are owned by this or other packages
* All necessary BuildRequires listed.

Need to Check:
* Ray, you might want to check w/ Rex Dieter about removing the vendor on the
desktop file.  I believe the vendor needs to remain constant for the life of a
package due to menu-editing (which bases off of .desktop file/path names).

Minor Non-Blocker:
* * Duplicate BuildRequires: libbonobo-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), pango-devel
(by libgnomeui-devel), libgnomecanvas-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), gtk2-devel
(by libgnomeui-devel), gnome-vfs2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), glib2-devel (by
libgnomeui-devel), libxml2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libgnome-devel (by
libgnomeui-devel), libglade2-devel (by libgnomeui-devel), libgnomeui-devel (by
gnome-desktop-devel)

[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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: Merge Review: bug-buddy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-03 19:49 EST -------
I think it is not a good idea to remove BR for things that are explicitly
required by configure, just because they happen to also be dragged in by
something else.

[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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: Merge Review: bug-buddy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-05 16:31 EST -------
So to be clear, the issue is that removing the vendor will change the filename
and the menu editor keys off the of the filename when making changes to the menu.

That seems a bit icky.  It means we can never clean up the --vendor cruft, but
for now I'll just add --vendor back until we can figure out a better solution.

[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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: Merge Review: bug-buddy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629

[e-mail] changed:

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

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-06-16 23:59 EST -------
Brian, why is there a - in the fedora-review field ?

I don't see any blocking issue in your comment above.

[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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: Merge Review: bug-buddy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629

[e-mail] changed:

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

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-06-17 10:02 EST -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Brian, why is there a - in the fedora-review field ?
>
> I don't see any blocking issue in your comment above.

Not really sure either.  changing to +.

[Bug 225629] Merge Review: bug-buddy

[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: Merge Review: bug-buddy

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225629

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Product|Fedora Extras               |Fedora

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |CURRENTRELEASE

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-08-10 22:41 EST -------
Ok, review done.