Bug 446993
| Summary: | Review Request: liblicense - License for storing and retrieving license information in media files | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Asheesh Laroia <redhat> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Dennis Gilmore <dennis> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dennis, fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | dennis:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2008-09-15 18:48:21 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: | |||
|
Description
Asheesh Laroia
2008-05-16 21:08:28 UTC
Builds fine in mock rpmlint output liblicense.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/liblicense.so liblicense.i386: E: description-line-too-long The liblicense package contains the library, bindings, CLI utilities and license files. liblicense.i386: W: invalid-license LGPL v2.1 liblicense.src:40: W: unversioned-explicit-provides python-liblicense liblicense.src: E: description-line-too-long The liblicense package contains the library, bindings, CLI utilities and license files. liblicense.src: W: invalid-license LGPL v2.1 liblicense-cli.i386: W: no-documentation liblicense-cli.i386: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/bin liblicense-cli.i386: E: summary-too-long Simple command-line utility for examining the license in a file or setting a user preference for a default license liblicense-cli.i386: E: description-line-too-long Simple command-line utility for examining the license in a file or setting a user preference for a default license liblicense-cli.i386: W: invalid-license LGPL v2.1 liblicense-debuginfo.i386: W: invalid-license LGPL v2.1 liblicense-devel.i386: W: no-documentation liblicense-devel.i386: W: invalid-license LGPL v2.1 liblicense-modules.i386: W: no-documentation liblicense-modules.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Input/output modules for accessing license metadata in various file foramts. liblicense-modules.i386: W: invalid-license LGPL v2.1 liblicense-python.i386: W: no-documentation liblicense-python.i386: W: invalid-license LGPL v2.1 license should be LGPLv2 per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#head-489bc5bbf14ecdb808316674e9fc465243c liblicense.so should be in the devel package you should use %{_bindir}/* not %{_bindir} the description lines needs to be shorter missing documentation is ok for the sub packages Thanks for the review. Can you redownload the SRPM and Spec? I've updated them to match the issues you raised (and now I know how to use rpmlint myself!). This is a re-ping - I have fixed the rpmlint issues you raised. Do there remain any other problems? What is the next step? I uploaded a 0.7.0-2 .spec and SRPM, and when I build it here is the rpmlint output: paulproteus@f8:~/gitted/liblicense $ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/SRPMS/liblicense-0.7.0-2.src.rpm paulproteus@f8:~/gitted/liblicense $ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/liblicense-*0.7.0-2* liblicense-cli.i386: W: no-documentation liblicense-devel.i386: W: no-documentation liblicense-modules.i386: W: no-documentation liblicense-python.i386: W: no-documentation As you wrote, it is okay to have no documentation on the subpackages. And other than that, rpmlint reports no problems. The 0.7.0-2 files are: SRPM: http://labs.creativecommons.org/~paulproteus/liblicense/liblicense-0.7.0-2.src.rpm Spec: http://labs.creativecommons.org/~paulproteus/liblicense/liblicense-0.7.0-2.spec Let me know what the next steps I need to take are. As I understand it, I'm waiting for another review; I was impressed with how speedy the first one was! Looks like this is Asheesh's first package and so he'll need a sponsor. I'm not sure if Dennis intended to do that. [dennis@bratac ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock//fedora-9-x86_64/result/*rpm liblicense.src:92: E: files-attr-not-set liblicense.src:95: E: files-attr-not-set liblicense.src:98: E: files-attr-not-set liblicense.src:99: E: files-attr-not-set liblicense.src:100: E: files-attr-not-set liblicense.src:103: E: files-attr-not-set liblicense.src:104: E: files-attr-not-set liblicense.src:105: E: files-attr-not-set liblicense.src:106: E: files-attr-not-set liblicense.src:107: E: files-attr-not-set liblicense-cli.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblicense-cli.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/license ['/usr/lib64'] liblicense-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblicense-modules.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblicense-python.x86_64: W: no-documentation liblicense-python.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/python2.5/site-packages/liblicense/liblicense.so ['/usr/lib64'] 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 12 errors, 4 warnings. I had intended to sponsor Asheesh. it builds fine in mock but we have a few things to fix still one last issue with the spec file you posted in irc liblicense.src: E: invalid-spec-name liblicense-0.7.0-3.spec please name the spec liblicense.spec and post here. things should then be ok SRPM: http://labs.creativecommons.org/~paulproteus/liblicense/0.7.0-3/liblicense-0.7.0-3.src.rpm spec: http://labs.creativecommons.org/~paulproteus/liblicense/0.7.0-3/liblicense.spec The SRPM has the .spec embedded with the name, "liblicense.spec". Looks good, now. builds cleanly. Approved please follow the cvs procedure https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure and apply for cvsextras in the accounts system and i will sponsor you. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: liblicense Short Description: The liblicense package contains a library, bindings, CLI utilities and license files for accessing license metadata in various file formats Owners: asheesh,dgilmore Branches: F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes When I try to set fedora-cvs to "?" I am told by Bugzilla: "You tried to request fedora-cvs. Only an authorized user can make this change." I'm pretty sure dennis intended to set fedora-review to '+'. "dgilmore" is not a valid FAS account; using "ausil". CVS done. |