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
What |Removed |Added
------- Additional Comments From peter(a)thecodergeek.com 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
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.
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
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.
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.