Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 172755 - Review Request: xcompmgr - X11 composite manager
Summary: Review Request: xcompmgr - X11 composite manager
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kevin Fenzi
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL: http://xapps.freedesktop.org
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2005-11-09 05:06 UTC by Deji Akingunola
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-07-01 00:30:10 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Deji Akingunola 2005-11-09 05:06:22 UTC
Spec Name or Url: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/xcompmgr.spec
SRPM Name or Url: ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/xcompmgr-1.1.3.srpm
Description: xcompmgr is a sample compositing manager for X servers supporting the XFIXES, DAMAGE, and COMPOSITE extensions. It enables basic eye-candy effects

Comment 1 Rudolf Kastl 2005-12-11 01:39:50 UTC
files not avialable anymore

Comment 2 Deji Akingunola 2005-12-11 01:50:22 UTC
sorry about that, check again.

Comment 3 Rudolf Kastl 2005-12-12 01:09:24 UTC
a working url. the link for your binary package doesent work (no big deal).
ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/

spec file looks good to me ;) works like a charm on x86_64 rawhide and nvidia
card for me.



Comment 4 Andy Burns 2006-01-03 17:02:14 UTC
These files were there 10 minutes ago, now they're gone :-(

Comment 5 Deji Akingunola 2006-01-03 19:21:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> These files were there 10 minutes ago, now they're gone :-(

The computer hosting the files was reboot around that time, should be alright
now. And as Rudolf noted earlier, the proper link is;
 ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/xcompmgr.spec
 ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/xxcompmgr-1.1.3-1.src.rpm

Comment 7 Andy Burns 2006-01-03 21:50:52 UTC
> The computer hosting the files was reboot around that time

Yep, got it now, built OK on x86_64 (warning about non-existant user using root
instead) xcompmgr runs fine with xorg 7.0RC4 on radeon

Section "Extensions"
        Option "Composite" "Enable"
EndSection

Section "Device"
        Identifier  "Videocard0"
        VendorName  "Sapphire"
        BoardName   "ATI Technologies Inc RV370 X550"
        ChipId      0x5b62
        Driver      "radeon"
        Option      "AccelMethod" "EXA"
        Option      "EnablePageFlip" "false"
        Option      "DDCMode"
        Option      "RenderAccel" "true"
        Option      "SubPixelOrder" "NONE"
        Option      "ColorTiling" "false"
EndSection

xcompmgr loads, KDE with transparent/fade/shadows works ok, if rather slowly.

one or two cases where single row of pixels not composited properly, I wouldn't
know if this was xorg, kde or xcompmgr though.

On a 3GHz P4 it eats 50% user CPU + 30% system cpu by runnign a fully cached "ls
-lR /" in a foreground konsole, if running in a transparent background konsole
it still eats 50% user but only eats 10% system, however it runs about 1/4 the
speed.

I'm sure that slowness is to be expected without using fglrx, but would be
delighted to receive any magic xorg.conf tweaks :-)

Is anything blocking this going into extras?


Comment 8 Bryan O'Sullivan 2006-02-03 15:15:52 UTC
I'd love to see this in extras, too, but the URL is down again.

Comment 9 Kevin Fenzi 2006-02-12 19:15:21 UTC
Greetings, heres a review:

MUST items:

OK - package name good.
OK - spec file matches.
OK - spec in english.
OK - spec legible.
OK - md5sum matches:
44ccbafa8484b7e0c00e5c83cd915adc  xcompmgr-1.1.3.tar.gz
44ccbafa8484b7e0c00e5c83cd915adc  xcompmgr-1.1.3.tar.gz.1
OK - compiles and builds under devel.
OK - files and dirs ok.
OK - clean section good.
OK - macros good.
OK - builds ok in mock on devel.

Needs looking at:

1. License. Is it really X11/MIT? I see that SuSE ships this package as GPL.
The License at the top of the .c file does look BSDish. Might confirm?

2. rpmlint has some output:

E: xcompmgr description-line-too-long xcompmgr is a sample compositing manager
for X servers supporting the XFIXES, DAMAGE, and COMPOSITE extensions. It
enables basic eye-candy effects
W: xcompmgr invalid-license MIT/X11
W: xcompmgr-debuginfo invalid-license MIT/X11

You might add a line break or two in the description line.

Optional:

3. You might optionally ship the Changelog file as a doc.

4. You might get upstream to ship a copy of it's license with it.

Clarify and confirm the License and fix the description line,
and I will APPROVE.


Comment 10 Deji Akingunola 2006-02-16 04:08:54 UTC
Sorry for responding so promptly. i can't really confirm the specific license
here, but i daresay it's definitely not GPL, see the last entry in the changelog
for that. In keeping with other products (apps, libs, and drivers) available
from xorg, I'll say MIT/X11 is okay.
Description line in the spec file is fixed and changelog shipped as doc.
ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/xcompmgr.spec
ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/xcompmgr-1.1.3-2.src.rpm

Thanks for doing the review.

Comment 11 Kevin Fenzi 2006-02-16 05:00:46 UTC
ok, I did some searching around. It appears the license is really a SGI/STL
license ( something like: http://www.mcda.org/help/stl.html ).

From what I could gather this is a very close variant of the MIT license, 
so it should be ok to ship. 

Note that rpmlint only has "MIT" as a valid license, not MIT/X11. 

I would say change the License to just MIT and then it's APPROVED. 

Thanks for your patience. 

Comment 12 Wart 2006-02-16 05:14:46 UTC
(In reply to comment #11)
> ok, I did some searching around. It appears the license is really a SGI/STL
> license ( something like: http://www.mcda.org/help/stl.html ).
> 
> From what I could gather this is a very close variant of the MIT license, 
> so it should be ok to ship. 
> 
> Note that rpmlint only has "MIT" as a valid license, not MIT/X11. 
> 
> I would say change the License to just MIT and then it's APPROVED. 

I disagree.  IMHO, I don't think we should be changing license tags just to
silence rpmlint warnings.  If rpmlint warns about it then make a note of it in
the spec file, file a bug with rpmlint, and live with the warning.

Comment 13 Kevin Fenzi 2006-02-16 05:27:30 UTC
The License is very close to the MIT license. It's even closer to the STL license. 

However, it's not exactly either of them as it has the name of the author in
some places. Best I suppose would be to make the License field "STL" as thats
what it's closest to, and file a RFE against rpmlint to add that license. 

I think rpmlint only recognizes the MIT tag as thats what OSI calls the MIT/X11
license. gnu.org calls it only the X11 license and says "This license is
sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is misleading, since MIT has
used many licenses for software." 

I guess I do see a number of packages using X11/MIT, so I guess rpmlint should
recognize either of the forms of this same license (X11, MIT/X11, MIT). 


Comment 14 Kevin Fenzi 2006-03-05 20:02:38 UTC
Ping Deji. 

Per the license comments, unless there is further objection, could you change it
to STL in the package and file a RFE against rpmlint to add that as a valid
license? Thoughts?



Comment 15 Gilboa Davara 2006-03-15 18:16:30 UTC
Small fix: (Changelog -> ChangeLog)

[gilboa@gilboa-home-dev SPECS]$ diff -u old/xcompmgr.spec new/xcompmgr.spec
--- old/xcompmgr.spec   2006-03-15 20:21:45.000000000 +0200
+++ new/xcompmgr.spec   2006-03-15 20:20:10.000000000 +0200
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 Summary: X11 composite manager
 Name: xcompmgr
 Version: 1.1.3
-Release: 2
+Release: 3
 License: MIT/X11
 Group: User Interface/X
 URL: http://xapps.freedesktop.org
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@

 %files
 %defattr(-,root,root,-)
-%doc Changelog
+%doc ChangeLog
 %{_bindir}/xcompmgr
 %{_mandir}/man1/xcompmgr.1.gz


Comment 16 Kevin Fenzi 2006-04-22 18:35:38 UTC
In response to comment #15: 

good catch. That change should be made. 

Deji: Are you still around? Do you still want to maintain this package?


Comment 17 Deji Akingunola 2006-04-22 19:41:00 UTC
Hi all,

I'm still around ;) I'm sorry I've almost forgotten the package is still at this
stage. I've change the license tag to MIT (I can't find any reference to STL
anywhere in the source). newer spec and src.rpm files are at the usual place;
ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/xcompmgr.spec
ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/xcompmgr-1.1.3-3.src.rpm
 

Comment 18 Gilboa Davara 2006-04-22 21:06:59 UTC
BTW,

There are large number of fixes in cvs. (including the odd rdesktop problem.)
Any idea when 1.3.4 will be out?

G.

Comment 19 Kevin Fenzi 2006-04-29 20:21:31 UTC
In answer to comment #17: 

Well, the package doesn't mention the license as being STL, but look at: 
http://www.mcda.org/help/stl.html

and then diff it vs the license in this package and the first part is identical,
then this package has 

"...and that the name of Keith Packard not be used in
advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software without
specific, written prior permission.  Keith Packard makes no
representations about the suitability of this software for any purpose.  It
is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty."

So I think it's much closer to the STL license than the MIT one. 

Any license gurus out there that can chime in? 

In refrence to comment #18: 

Which CVS repo are you looking at? I don't see any changes in the ones I looked
at anytime recently (which might be after this release version I guess). 

Comment 20 Kevin Fenzi 2006-06-29 19:47:33 UTC
Sorry that this package dropped off my radar... 

Deji: You still around? 

The only blocker I still see here is what to put in the spec for License. 
I think "STL" or even "xcompmgr" would be acceptable. 

Any thoughts? It would be good to get this in... 

Comment 21 Deji Akingunola 2006-06-30 01:31:28 UTC
Ok, here is it, with 'STL' for license.
ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/xcompmgr.spec
ftp://czar.eas.yorku.ca/pub/xcompmgr/xcompmgr-1.1.3-4.src.rpm

Comment 22 Kevin Fenzi 2006-06-30 01:39:53 UTC
Looks fine with me... go ahead and import and build. 

Don't forget to close this as NEXTRELEASE once it's imported and built. 

Comment 23 Deji Akingunola 2006-07-01 00:30:10 UTC
Imported and built.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.