Bug 185576
Summary: | Review Request: dumb - IT, XM, S3M and MOD player library | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Hans de Goede <hdegoede> | ||||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> | ||||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | wart | ||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
Last Closed: | 2006-03-16 19:56:42 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||
Embargoed: | |||||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Hans de Goede
2006-03-15 22:00:13 UTC
Michael, As usual this is a very often used allegro addon lib used by quite a few games I'm planning on packaging. Thanks in advance! Looks like Jason beat me to it. :) This package has an incredibly poor license. What's the point of stating a bunch of meaningless conditions and then specifying that you can ignore them if it makes the package GPL incompatible? In any case, it's clear that the package is explicitly GPL-compatible, and it's pointless to try to come up with any other statement of the license. So "GPL-Compatible" seems reasonable, although "Dumb license" is tempting. One question: Why are readme.txt and release.txt part of the -devel package? They seem to contain useful end-user info, and so it seems to me as if they should be in the main package. There are a couple of other files under docs that could probably be considered to be non-developer documentation as well (modplug.txt, faq.txt). rpmlint only complains about the license: W: dumb invalid-license GPL-Compatible W: dumb-devel invalid-license GPL-Compatible MUSTs: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. * license field matches the license, as it is. * license is open source-compatible and included as %doc. * source files match upstream: 3e345d643060880bab7c574774c4b35b dumb-0.9.3-autotools.tar.gz 3e345d643060880bab7c574774c4b35b dumb-0.9.3-autotools.tar.gz-srpm f48da5b990aa8aa822d3b6a951baf5c2 dumb-0.9.3.tar.gz f48da5b990aa8aa822d3b6a951baf5c2 dumb-0.9.3.tar.gz-srpm * package builds in mock on x86_64 and i386. * BuildRequires are proper. * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called as necessary. * package is not relocatable. * package does not create any directories. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in a -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * unversioned shared library links are in the -devel package. * -devel package has a versioned dependency on the base package. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. * Package owns no files that are owned by other packages. Just the issue of the readme.txt and release.txt to discuss. About readme.txt, a quote from the Introduction part of it: "This file will help you get DUMB set up. If you have not yet done so, please read licence.txt and release.txt before proceeding. After you've got DUMB set up, please refer to the files in the docs/ directory at your convenience. I recommend you start with howto.txt." And then it continues on howto compile under Windows, Linux, etc. I guees I should have completly ommited it, atleats that is what I would like to suggest now. But imho this is most defenitly not end user documentation About release.txt this is basicly a changelog and indeed belongs in the main package. About modplug.txt this is written with mod-file creators as intended audience and warns them tio shy away from non IT compatible modplug extensions, I don't know where this belongs, its basicly a polite rant against modplug, maybe we shouldn't include it at all? About faq.txt 95% of the questions in here are about using the library in other programs. The one question which is not once more is intended for mod-file creators and is again about modplug IT incompatibilities. So I suggest for the docs: -drop readme.txt -mv release.txt to the main package -drop modplug.txt -leave faq.txt in the -devel package I'll attach a new spec with these changes (sorry no upload to my isp hosted page from work). Created attachment 126213 [details]
improved specfile
The thing about readme.txt is that it also has a feature list and info about where to get music that it can play as well as a bunch of developer documentation. It's also the only documentation for the three executables which are included with the main package. We'll have to accept that there isn't a proper separation of user and developer documentation for this package, but if there's one file that actually describes what on earth the software does, it's readme.txt. If the intent of the package isn't to supply the three executables, perhaps it would also be reasonable to drop them and rename the package to "libdumb". Created attachment 126233 [details]
improved specfile
Ok, I see your point, readme.txt added to the main package as requested, see
the attached new specfile.
Cool. Approved. Thanks, imported and build, closing. |