Bug 688546

- rpmlint FAIL
rpmlint ~/Downloads/doxygenfilter-1.10-4.noarch.rpm 
W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.10-3 ['1.10-4', '1.10-4']
E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/DoxyGen/VBFilter.pm
- package must be named according to Guidelines OK
- spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK
- package must meet the Packaging Guidelines FAIL
- package must be licensed with Fedora approved license FAIL
- license field must match actual license FAIL
- text of the license in its own file must be included in %doc FAIL
- sources must match the upstream source OK
 d5be1fe6750dfc358896d5995347dc2dd6bc71fe
- package MUST successfully compile and build OK
 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2959808
- architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla OK
- build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK
- handle locales properly with %find_lang macro OK
- shared library files must call ldconfig in %post(un) OK
- packages must NOT bundle system libraries OK
- package must own all directories that it creates OK
- permissions on files must be set properly OK
- package must consistently use macros OK
- package must contain code, or permissable content OK
- large documentation must go in a -doc OK
- %doc must not affect the runtime of the application OK
- header files must be in a -devel package OK
- static libraries must be in a -static package OK
- library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel OK
- devel package usually require base package OK
- packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives OK
- GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file OK
- packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages OK

There are few packaging errors:
 * rpmlint error must be fixed.
 * license is not GPL+. See any file in doxygen filter, where is stated same as Perl, which was decided by our legal as GPL+ or Artistic. Problem could be that packager of source tarball and spec file decided license as GPL. Details about licences https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses_2
 * license is not installed in docs
 * macros in specfile are not incorrect, but the way how are they used is more common in Mandriva. Some of them could be problematic in future, so I'll attach patch of spec file.

The biggest problem is in my opinion license.

Also Vendor is Fedora in case we are providing it as rpm. 
From guidelines:
"The Vendor tag should not be used. It is set automatically by the build system. "

Created attachment 488687 [details]
proposal of rewritten spec file

(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 488687 [details]
> proposal of rewritten spec file

Thanks.  I'll take a look at this.

(In reply to comment #3)
> Created attachment 488687 [details]
> proposal of rewritten spec file

You didn't add anything to the changelog.  Did you mean to?

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Created attachment 488687 [details]
> > proposal of rewritten spec file
> 
> You didn't add anything to the changelog.  Did you mean to?

It's only proposal, I don't need my name in specfile ;-) Do whatever is needed with specfile in your opinion.

Ping, do you need help with this review?

(In reply to comment #7)
> Ping, do you need help with this review?

I've just been really busy and haven't got around to it yet.  Sorry.  Life got really hectic at the end of last year and hasn't settled down yet. :(

No problem, I'm just going through my old bugs.

There is no update, I'm orphaning the review.