[Bug 195292] Review Request: Openbox

[bugzilla at 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: Openbox


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


peter at thecodergeek.com changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From peter at 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.