[Bug 226415] Merge Review: sgml-common

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Nov 15 14:43:52 UTC 2007


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: sgml-common


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226415





------- Additional Comments From ovasik at redhat.com  2007-11-15 09:43 EST -------
- build root will be changed
- requires you mentioned are in exception list so they could and will be removed
- URL you provided is not ok, much better is http://www.w3.org/2003/entities/
which I used for xml subpackage in May when I got the package - now will be used
generally as substitute of no longer available ISO 8879 page. Or I can use
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/pst/sgml-common.html - but this is
not upstream URL, it is only small howto/description for current sgml-common.
- timestamps kept by usage of -p 
- rpm macros like %{_bindir} and %{_datadir} used
- files xml.dcl, xml.soc and sgml.dcl, sgml.soc are from openjade package,
pubtext subdir, but it is a bit overkill to have whole 8.8M openjade package as
sources because of 10 kbytes of files not modified since 1999 (maybe longer)...
- that Changes file is outside the tarball(and included) since RHL 7.1, by Tim
Waugh - added because of changed location of files. I think it could be removed
because it is quiet a long time since the change of names and locations occured.
- %defattr(-, root, root, -) will be used

Additionally: fixed rpmlint warnings/issues - License tag, nonconfig file marked
as config, summary ended with dot.

So the points which I want to discuss are:
1) Do you really think that including openjade tarball into sources to digout a
few files from it is necessary? Those files didn't changed for years and I'm
maintainer of Openjade package - and it is mentioned that the files are from
OpenJade/pubtext dir.
2) About that usage of automake package: This would require to rewrite some
things inside the tarball and without adding any value - except more clean package. 
3) suggestion about with-docdir.patch for upstream - there is no upstream
page/bugzilla afaik, last package version is made 3 years ago - so I don't know
how can I get it to upstream and remove from fedora.

Will hold the build with changes until those three points will be clarified.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list