Bug 654862

* License: The GPL file included is GPLv2 text. But the section "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" explain how to apply the license to the code. But the code actually miss such license header.
The GPLv2 license explain that's 'safer' to apply license text in 'each' files from the saphire code. That will also clarify either it is GPLv2 (only) or GPLv2+
I've searched in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines and nothing state there is a need to have the license in header so far.
But at least GPL isn't accurate in the license field. (it is either GPLv2 or GPLv2+).

* rpmlint on installed files, OK
# rpmlint saphire
saphire.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaphire.so.1.0 /lib64/libncurses.so.5
saphire.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary saphire
saphire.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sash
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# rpmlint saphire-devel
saphire-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

* Keeping timestamp on header installation: NOT OK
ls -al /usr/include/saphire*
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root  4114 30 nov.  11:11 /usr/include/saphire_curses.h
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root  1770 30 nov.  11:11 /usr/include/saphire_debug.h
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root  1042 30 nov.  11:11 /usr/include/saphire_extra.h
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root 12764 30 nov.  11:11 /usr/include/saphire.h
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root  2036 30 nov.  11:11 /usr/include/saphire_hash.h
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root  3203 30 nov.  11:11 /usr/include/saphire_kanji.h
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root  2603 30 nov.  11:11 /usr/include/saphire_list.h
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root  2679 30 nov.  11:11 /usr/include/saphire_string.h
-rw-r--r--. 1 root root  2627 30 nov.  11:11 /usr/include/saphire_vector.h
Theses headers will then conflict on multilib package. Fixed version:
# Keep timestamp
sed -i.stamp \
        -e 's| -m 755| -p -m 755|g' \
        -e 's| -m 644| -p -m 644|g' \
        Makefile.in

* Debug info are generated and extracted correctly: OK
* RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used. OK
* Usability test: OK

I can't see a reason to hold the package. But It would be fine to have an answear from upstream about the License. Otherwise assume it is GPLv2 only.


saphire is APPROVED.

(In reply to comment #1)
> * License: The GPL file included is GPLv2 text. But the section "How to Apply
> These Terms to Your New Programs" explain how to apply the license to the code.
> But the code actually miss such license header.
> The GPLv2 license explain that's 'safer' to apply license text in 'each' files
> from the saphire code. That will also clarify either it is GPLv2 (only) or
> GPLv2+
> I've searched in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
> and nothing state there is a need to have the license in header so far.
> But at least GPL isn't accurate in the license field. (it is either GPLv2 or
> GPLv2+).
- Well, if no files (other than GPLv2 license text) specifies the
  version of GPL, the license tag should be "GPL+", not "GPLv2" or
  "GPLv2+", as written on:
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F

> * Keeping timestamp on header installation: NOT OK
- Ah, thank you

> Theses headers will then conflict on multilib package
- (My recognition is that timestamp difference only won't cause
   multilib conflict, however anyway I will fix this, thank you)

> saphire is APPROVED.

Thank you!
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name:      saphire
Short Description: Yet another shell
Owners:            mtasaka
Branches:          f13 f14

This ticket is not assigned to anyone.  It should be assigned to the reviewer.
Please fix and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag.

So I have to wait one more day?

Git done (by process-git-requests).

You should expect that your request will not be processed if it is not properly formatted or if the ticket state is not correct.  Yes, this implies that you will need to wait until the next run of the request queue for your request to be processed.  We try to make sure the queue is processed at least once per day.

Closing.

Thank you for the review and git procedure.