Bug 500013
| Summary: | Review Request: dansguardian - Content filtering web proxy | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Felix Kaechele <felix> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matěj Cepl <mcepl> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | amcnabb, bernie+fedora, fedora-package-review, mcepl, mishu, notting, rdieter |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mcepl:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 2.10.1.1-1.fc10 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-07-20 08:07:06 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
Felix Kaechele
2009-05-10 07:28:42 UTC
*** Bug 458643 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I forgot to attach the spec and was pretty sure I added it later on. Seems not so :-/ Nevertheless here it is: http://heffer.fedorapeople.org/review/dansguardian.spec + GOOD: rpmlint is silent on both source and binary package.
+ GOOD: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ GOOD: The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ GOOD: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines .
? UNEASY: The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
I would feel much better if you mentioned somehwere (specfile, copyright statements in the source code) explicit permission to package it in Fedora from http://dansguardian.org/?page=copyright2:
* freely (no cost) downloadable from this site for general purpose unix distributions like FreeBSD, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc
Otherwise we could look like changing software's license without author's permission.
+ GOOD: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
see the previous point, it is correct as of now; it would have to be changed, if license files are not changed, or changed in different way.
- BAD: LICENSE file is in %doc.
It isn't ... COPYING file that is.
+ GOOD: The spec file is written in American English.
+ GOOD: The spec file for the package is legible.
+ GOOD: The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
68c8e9a97a3b58d2467a19cb15db5599
+ GOOD: The package successfully compiles and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
Koji scratch build is
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1383216
+ GOOD: builds on all architectures
+ GOOD: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. (builds in koji)
+ GOOD: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
No locale support.
+ GOOD: no libraries
+ GOOD: not relocatable
+ GOOD: A package owns all directories that it creates.
+ GOOD: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
+ GOOD: Permissions on files must be set properly.
+ GOOD: Each package have a %clean section.
+ GOOD: Each package consistently use macros.
+ GOOD: The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ GOOD: No large documentation files, so no a -doc subpackage.
+ GOOD: Files registered in %doc does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ GOOD: No header files.
+ GOOD: No static libraries.
+ GOOD: No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ GOOD: The package does not contain library files with a suffix.
+ GOOD: No devel packages.
+ GOOD: No .la libtool archives.
+ GOOD: Packages does not contain GUI applications.
+ GOOD: Packages does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
+ GOOD: Runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install
+ GOOD: All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.
+ GOOD: Includes license text.
Please fix or explain above show issues.
Thank you for your review. I adressed the issues you pointed out and updated the spec file: Spec: http://heffer.fedorapeople.org/review/dansguardian.spec SRPM: http://heffer.fedorapeople.org/review/dansguardian-2.10.0.3-2.fc11.src.rpm I just don't feel like deciding about this. The question I have is whether the author would object to inclusion of dansguardian in RHEL (if that ever happens). RHEL is freely distributable (and of course there is CentOS), but Red Hat charges for support, so the limitations on his page http://dansguardian.org/?page=copyright2 are unequivocal. Probably best would be get the author's statement on the issue. Blocking FE-LEGAL again and posting question to fedora-legal. Aside from this issue this package is OK, and it would be approved. And of course if you write the email to the auhor, please, do mention existence of ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/ (complete src.rpm files of RHEL). He may not know about it. IMO, and all that. The code says it's GPLv2+, so, there shouldn't be any blocker license-wise. The author is trying to place additional restrictions on copies downloaded from his site, which is questionable, but shouldn't be relevant here as the software will be distributed by the fedoraproject (or other downstream projects). (In reply to comment #7) > IMO, and all that. > > The code says it's GPLv2+, so, there shouldn't be any blocker license-wise. > > The author is trying to place additional restrictions on copies downloaded from > his site, which is questionable, but shouldn't be relevant here as the software > will be distributed by the fedoraproject (or other downstream projects). You may be right, but the upstream website is so confusing, that I would rather have unequivocal statement of the upstream author on this topic. Dansguardian already went through RH legal. Their response was: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458643#c8 And that was already implemented in my spec file. Cool, lifting FE-LEGAL. OK, then this package is APPROVED. Okay. Thank you for the Review! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dansguardian Short Description: Content filtering web proxy Owners: heffer Branches: F-10 F-11 devel InitialCC: CVS done. dansguardian-2.10.1.1-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dansguardian-2.10.1.1-1.fc10 *** Bug 512033 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** dansguardian-2.10.1.1-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dansguardian'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-7741 dansguardian-2.10.1.1-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dansguardian'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7781 This bug was supposed to be closed when http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=114396 finished. Closing now. dansguardian-2.10.1.1-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. dansguardian-2.10.1.1-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |