Bug 226028

rpmlint output:
libIDL.src: W: no-url-tag
libIDL.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libIDL.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libIDL-2.so.0.0.0 exit.5
libIDL-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
libIDL-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

- Add source url, maybe will have to do with just
http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/libIDL/
 if software does not have a homepage.

- Enable SMP make.

- For info file installation change
Requires(post): /sbin/install-info
to
Requires(post):         info
Requires(preun):        info


MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the  Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSFIX
 - ltmain.sh, parser.c and parser.h are under GPLv2+. License should thus probably be LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSFIX
 - Add BUGS and MAINTAINERS to %doc.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK

MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK
 - You might want to change the requires to %{name} instead of libIDL.

MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

Ping.

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
NEEDSFIX
 - ltmain.sh, parser.c and parser.h are under GPLv2+. License should thus
probably be LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+.

ltmain.sh is a part of libtool. I don't see how that could be relevant for the license of this package.

(In reply to comment #3)
> MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
> NEEDSFIX
>  - ltmain.sh, parser.c and parser.h are under GPLv2+. License should thus
> probably be LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+.
> 
> ltmain.sh is a part of libtool. I don't see how that could be relevant for the
> license of this package.  

Duh, what have I been thinking..

parser.c states:

"  As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains
   part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work
   under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a
   parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof
   as a parser skeleton."

So the licensing is probably OK after all.

ping?

ping again?

ping what ? kindly state what you want

(In reply to comment #8)
> ping what ? kindly state what you want  

Please address the issues in comment #1 (except the license issue which was cleared out) so that the package can be approved and the merge review closed.

ping mclasen

Created attachment 439502 [details]
Patch against rawhide spec

See patch in comment #11 for suggested changes. Now as I look at them, they're mostly cosmetic, so I don't see any reason not to approve this review.

APPROVED

Maybe you'll want to go through them quickly, anyhow.

Created attachment 439520 [details]
Patch against rawhide spec

Patch looks fine to commit, no objections. If you have the privileges to do a build with it, feel free to that too. Otherwise, I'll do it at some point.

OK, all done!