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 177946 - Review Request: xkeycaps : Graphical front end to xmodmap
Summary: Review Request: xkeycaps : Graphical front end to xmodmap
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Chris Chabot
QA Contact: David Lawrence
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-01-16 19:05 UTC by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-01-17 09:50:58 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-01-16 19:05:58 UTC 
Spec Name or Url: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xkeycaps.spec
SRPM Name or Url: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xkeycaps-2.46-1.src.rpm
Description:
xkeycaps is a graphical front-end to xmodmap. It opens a window that
looks like a keyboard; moving the mouse over a key shows what KeySyms
and Modifier bits that key generates. Clicking on a key simulates
KeyPress/KeyRelease events on the window of your choice. It is possible
to change the KeySyms and Modifiers generated by a key through a
mouse-based interface. This program can also write an input file for
xmodmap to recreate your changes in future sessions.

NOTE TO REVIEWERS: This spec and SRPM are for FC-5 (modular X). If you are testing this on an older build of Fedora Core, you can replace all of the BuildRequires in the spec with "xorg-x11-devel".
Comment 1 Chris Chabot 2006-01-16 20:04:40 UTC 
Compiled cleanly & functions on FC5-devel

Missing: .desktop file (Required by PackageReviewGuidelines) or explanation why
Missing: (copied from upstream or in package included) licence file, however
there is a copyright mentioned in the manpage, not sure if this is 'good
enough', will trust packager's judgement on this
 
Review list MUST items:
- Builds cleanly on FC5 devel.
- rpmlint has no output / complaints
- Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum)
- Package name meets guidelines
- spec file name is in %{name}.spec format
- Licence (BSD-ish?) is fedora extra's compatible
- Spec file is in (american) english
- Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines
- All build dependencies are listed
- No need for ldconfig
- All files have proper permissions
- Package is not relocatable
- No duplicate files in %files section
- No missing files in %files section
- Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines
- No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation
- No -devel package needed
- No directory-ownerships needed

Review list SHOULD items:
- No insane scriplets
- No unnescesarry requires

rpmlint has no complaints at all (no output) & mock build cleanly (fc-devel-i386)
Comment 2 Chris Chabot 2006-01-16 20:10:40 UTC 
Woops mock did end up complaining there are missing build requires:
libXt-devel
xorg-x11-proto-devel

Please add those to BR
Comment 3 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-01-16 20:51:32 UTC 
Good catches. The source doesn't include any license text, and the license is
derived from the documentation and source code, so there will not be any text in
%doc.

-2 has all the above issues resolved:

SRPM: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xkeycaps-2.46-2.src.rpm
SPEC: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/xkeycaps.spec
Comment 4 Chris Chabot 2006-01-16 21:18:25 UTC 
Thanks v2 looks good, formal reviewlist:

Review list MUST items:
- Builds cleanly on FC5 devel.
- rpmlint has no output / complaints
- Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum)
- Package name meets guidelines
- spec file name is in %{name}.spec format
- Licence (BSD-ish?) is fedora extra's compatible, included in 'man xkeycaps'
- Spec file is in (american) english
- Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines
- All build dependencies are listed
- No need for ldconfig
- All files have proper permissions
- Package is not relocatable
- No duplicate files in %files section
- No missing files in %files section
- Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines
- No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation
- No -devel package needed
- No directory-ownerships needed
- Includes desktop file, BR desktop-file-utils, installs using
desktop-file-install w/ proper vendor/category

Review list SHOULD items:
- No insane scriplets
- No unnescesarry requires

rpmlint has no complaints at all (no output)

However mock failed again; It has a missing libXext-devel BR.

Please if you have a faster machine then my notebook try mockbuilds your self
too to make sure your including all BR's properly? :-)

After adding that BR, rpmbuild -bs and a new mock build everything is peachy
perfect again. 

FE-APPROVED but based on the assumption you will add that BR before commiting to
CVS.
Comment 5 Chris Chabot 2006-01-16 21:19:44 UTC 
Ps please assign bug to me according to process docs, i haven't been processed
for fedorabugs yet so i can't yet :-)
Comment 6 Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-01-17 05:38:08 UTC 
This is built... but you forgot to set the bug to FE-ACCEPT, so please close
this when you do. :)
Comment 7 Chris Chabot 2006-01-17 09:50:58 UTC 
Woops my bad, set correct blocker bug now and closing to 'NEXTRELEASE"
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.