Bug 220796

Spec URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/turba.spec
SRPM URL: http://theholbrooks.org/RPMS/turba-2.1.3-2.src.rpm

Fallout from the horde review: the symlink to /etc/horde/turba/ is now relative.

First off, I think the License: tag is wrong.  It's certainly not GPL; the
Horde site lists it as "Apache-like".  In truth it is essentially the Apache
license, version 1.0, with some strings changed and the "some parts are public
domain" bit removed from the end.  It is obviously free.  It's also kind of
dumb; how can you distribute a bunch of scripts in binary form?

But in any case, can you change the license tag to "Apache Software License
v1"?  I see nothing else problematic with this package, so you can go ahead
and fix it when you check in.

Also, I note that a Perl dependency snuck in.  I don't suppose this hurts
anything, although the single script that uses it is not terribly useful.

As usual, I'll start with rpmlint, but these are getting repetetive so I'll
just post a summary.

E: turba htaccess-file /usr/share/horde/turba/lib/.htaccess
   And four more.  All are acceptable; these htaccess files are needed.

E: turba non-readable /etc/horde/turba/attributes.php 0660
   And ten more.
E: turba non-standard-dir-perm /etc/horde/turba 0770
   These are all necessary for security.

E: turba non-standard-gid /etc/horde/turba apache
   And twenty-three more.
   These are all necessary for security.

W: turba conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/turba/attributes.php.dist
   And five more.
   These are distributed config files, and should not be marked %noreplace.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   a0407717f3f64fb33f6a57e2244a12b4  turba-h3-2.1.3.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint has only acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   config(turba) = 2.1.3-2.fc7
   turba = 2.1.3-2.fc7
=
   /bin/sh
   /usr/bin/perl
   /usr/bin/php
   config(turba) = 2.1.3-2.fc7
   horde >= 3
   perl(Getopt::Std)
   php >= 4.3.0
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* locales are handled properly
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

APPROVED, provided you change the License: tag appropriately.

Imported, Built
(http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/24706-turba-2.1.3-2.fc7/),
Branch Requested

Incidentally, I changed the License: to "Apache Software License v1" as
instructed, but rpmlint complains about it.  Is there another abbreviation /
spelling that rpmlint likes better?  I suppose as long as us humans understand
what license I'm referring to it's not a big deal.

Unfortunately rpmlint gets out of sync with things every so often.  The
packaging committee is working on cleaning up license specifications so that
there's at least a single way to specify each of the common licenses.  "Apache
Software License v1" is in the curent draft as the recommended string to use for
that license.

I expect that rpmlint will catch up only once we're done with the process and
have a full list of recommended license strings.