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 192418 - Review Request: xbae - Xbae widget set
Summary: Review Request: xbae - Xbae widget set
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: José Matos
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
: 193772 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-05-19 15:59 UTC by Patrice Dumas
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-09-14 10:10:08 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Patrice Dumas 2006-05-19 15:59:53 UTC
SRPM URL: http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xbae-4.60.2-1.src.rpm
Description: 
XbaeMatrix is a free Motif(R) table widget (also compatible with the free
LessTif) which presents an editable array of string data to the user in a
scrollable table similar to a spreadsheet. The rows and columns of the Matrix
may optionally be labelled. A number of "fixed" and "trailing fixed" rows
or columns may be specified.

The XbaeCaption widget is a simple Motif manager widget that associates
a label with a child.

In addition the XbaeInput widget is being distributed, a text input field
that provides generic customised data entry and formatting for strings.

Comment 1 Patrice Dumas 2006-05-19 16:03:48 UTC
Once/if this package is accepted grace may be rebuilt against it, I tested
that grace builds against the exterenal Xbae, but not that it runs.

Comment 2 Tobias Oed 2006-06-01 16:03:40 UTC
I packaged version 4.60.4 and submitted it for review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193772 and just now saw
your submission. I used the spec file that came with the xbae that used to be in
fedora 1. Not sure what to do about these duplicates.
Tobias.


Comment 3 Tobias Oed 2006-06-01 16:19:20 UTC
*** Bug 193772 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 Patrice Dumas 2006-06-02 15:58:56 UTC
srpm for the new version, with the .m4 file packaged and new summary

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xbae-4.60.4-1.src.rpm

Comment 5 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-25 09:46:14 UTC
Updated srpm, such that xbae don't depend on Wcl

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xbae.spec
http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xbae-4.60.4-2.src.rpm

- remove dependency on Wcl-devel (was only of use for an example)
- clean docs

Comment 6 José Matos 2006-08-29 21:16:56 UTC
I will review this package.

One question before starting, why do we need automake?

# for the aclocal directory
Requires:       automake

I am aware that automake is not as bad as autoconf, or is the other way 
around... ;-)

Comment 7 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-29 21:22:20 UTC
It is for the aclocal directory detection which is done 
by calling aclocal which is part of automake. Moreover
/usr/share/aclocal/ is in that package. 

Comment 8 José Matos 2006-08-29 21:55:41 UTC
You are right, my mistake. The issue I was addressing relates with automake
as BuildRequires and not Requires. I was wrong, apologies for that.

Here I get:
$ rpm -qf /usr/share/aclocal/
libXaw-devel-1.0.1-1.2
automake-1.9.6-2

and
$ rpm -q --requires libXaw-devel
libXaw = 1.0.1-1.2
libXmu-devel
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
xorg-x11-filesystem >= 0.99.2-3

So it seems that libXaw-devel is claiming /usr/share/aclocal/ wrongly. I 
should probably fill this as a packaging bug.

Comment 9 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-31 08:21:07 UTC
New version

http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/dumas/fc-srpms/xbae-4.60.4-3.src.rpm
- rebuild against lesstif
- add Obsolete/Provides for Xbae


As a side note, I think that grace won't have to be modified otherwise
than BuildRequiring xbae-devel instead of openmotif-devel once xbae 
is in, to switch to using lesstif.

Comment 10 Tobias Oed 2006-08-31 09:47:46 UTC
What is the motivation for switching from openmotif to lesstif? From 
my experience lesstif is more buggy than openmotif.
Tobias


Comment 11 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-31 09:53:07 UTC
You could have a look at Bug #202527, in short openmotif isn't OSI
compatible, this conflicts with fedora goals. There are many threads
on mailing lists also if you want further references.

Comment 12 José Matos 2006-09-08 16:45:01 UTC
Review for release 3:
* RPM name is OK
* Source xbae-4.60.4.tar.gz is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint of xbae looks OK
* rpmlint of xbae-devel looks OK
* File list of xbae looks OK
* File list of xbae-devel looks OK
* License is OK (BSD), text in %doc, matches source
* Spec is readable and written in American English
* no missing BR
* no unnecessary BR

Notes:
Any reason for
Obsoletes:      Xbae < %{version}-%{release}


Comment 13 Patrice Dumas 2006-09-08 20:26:23 UTC
(In reply to comment #12)
> Review for release 3:
> 
> Notes:
> Any reason for
> Obsoletes:      Xbae < %{version}-%{release}

It is to replace Xbae packages that have been provided up to
fedora core 2.



Comment 14 José Matos 2006-09-09 10:09:20 UTC
Ah, I see now. What I did not notice the first time is that Xbae is a 
capitalized version of xbae. That is why it was weird. You could add a comment 
there saying this, it is easier to understand that way.

* there are no duplicates in %files and all the directories are owned
* scripts are reasonable and according to the rules
* there are no static libraries
* there are no language specific files
* there is no need for a desktop file
* follows the packaging guidelines

APPROVED

Comment 15 Patrice Dumas 2006-09-14 10:10:08 UTC
Built in devel, added to owners.

Do you want a branch for FC5 for grace? Otherwise I don't think
it is necessary to have a FC5 branch, since there hasn't been
xbae since FC1, without anybody complaining...

Comment 16 José Matos 2006-09-14 11:15:00 UTC
Please do.

I would like, as far as possible, to maintain the same spec for different 
version.

Thank you.

Comment 17 Patrice Dumas 2006-09-18 08:33:54 UTC
Done.


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