[Bug 1429683] Review Request: xorgxrdp - Implementation of xrdp backend Xorg modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429683



--- Comment #7 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
please consider request a branch for f26, f25 and el7

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1429683] Review Request: xorgxrdp - Implementation of xrdp backend Xorg modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429683



--- Comment #6 from Pavel Roskin  ---
I considered both options. I think it would be better to make xrdp depend on
xorgxrdp. Users would get a degraded experience if they don't install xorgxrdp.
Even if Xvnc is already installed on the system, I would still suggest that
xorgxrdp is installed and used with xrdp.

I'm going to try "Suggests" before "Requires". If "Suggests" ensures that "dnf
install xrdp" would install xorgxrdp, I would use "Suggests".

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1429683] Review Request: xorgxrdp - Implementation of xrdp backend Xorg modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429683

Pavel Roskin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-03-08 19:27:37



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1429683] Review Request: xorgxrdp - Implementation of xrdp backend Xorg modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429683



--- Comment #5 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
I have a question, 

installing xrdp will also install this package by default ? (adding a requires
into xrdp package) 

or

It will continue "as is" and xorgxrdp will be only installed if user install it
using dnf install xorgxrdp 

?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1429683] Review Request: xorgxrdp - Implementation of xrdp backend Xorg modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429683



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/xorgxrdp

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1429683] Review Request: xorgxrdp - Implementation of xrdp backend Xorg modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429683



--- Comment #3 from Pavel Roskin  ---
Thank you. I've made the PackageDB request.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1429683] Review Request: xorgxrdp - Implementation of xrdp backend Xorg modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429683

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br



--- Comment #2 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
I think next step is here ->

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageDB_admin_requests

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1429683] Review Request: xorgxrdp - Implementation of xrdp backend Xorg modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429683

Bojan Smojver  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1429683] Review Request: xorgxrdp - Implementation of xrdp backend Xorg modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429683



--- Comment #1 from Bojan Smojver  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

= MUST items =

C/C++:
[X]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[X]: Package contains no static executables.
[X]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[X]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[X]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[X]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[X]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[X]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[X]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[X]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[X]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[X]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[X]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[X]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 xorgxrdp-debuginfo
[?]: Package functions as described.
[X]: Latest version is packaged.
[X]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
 

[Bug 1429683] Review Request: xorgxrdp - Implementation of xrdp backend Xorg modules

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1429683

Bojan Smojver  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bo...@rexursive.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bo...@rexursive.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org