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
peter(a)thecodergeek.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED
------- 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
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
--
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.