Spec URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libabw.spec SRPM URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libabw-0.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: libabw is a library for import of AbiWord files. Fedora Account System Username: dtardon
Spec URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libabw.spec SRPM URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libabw-0.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
Hi David. There is only a point in discussion: the compilation involves a file (src/lib/gentoken.pl) with triple license MPL 1.1 / GPLv3.0+ / LGPLv3.0+. This is a Mixed Source Licensing Scenario http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario so License tag should be "MPLv2.0 and (MPL 1.1 or GPLv3+ or LGPLv3+)". Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sagitter/libabw/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 4 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libabw-doc [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libabw-0.0.1-1.fc21.i686.rpm libabw-devel-0.0.1-1.fc21.i686.rpm libabw-doc-0.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm libabw-tools-0.0.1-1.fc21.i686.rpm libabw-0.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm libabw-tools.i686: W: no-documentation libabw-tools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abw2raw libabw-tools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abw2text libabw-tools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abw2html 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libabw-doc libabw libabw-tools libabw-devel libabw.i686: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib/libabw-0.0.so.0.0.1 /lib/libwpd-stream-0.9.so.9 libabw-tools.i686: W: no-documentation libabw-tools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abw2raw libabw-tools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abw2text libabw-tools.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary abw2html 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libabw-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libabw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libwpd-0.9.so.9 libwpd-stream-0.9.so.9 libxml2.so.2 libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.4.30) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.0) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.5.2) libxml2.so.2(LIBXML2_2.6.0) libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) libabw-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libabw(x86-32) libabw-0.0.so.0 libc.so.6 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libm.so.6 libstdc++.so.6 libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3) libwpd-0.9.so.9 libwpd-stream-0.9.so.9 libxml2.so.2 libz.so.1 rtld(GNU_HASH) libabw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libabw(x86-32) libabw-0.0.so.0 pkgconfig(libwpd-0.9) Provides -------- libabw-doc: libabw-doc libabw: libabw libabw(x86-32) libabw-0.0.so.0 libabw-tools: libabw-tools libabw-tools(x86-32) libabw-devel: libabw-devel libabw-devel(x86-32) pkgconfig(libabw-0.0) Source checksums ---------------- http://dev-www.libreoffice.org/src/libabw-0.0.1.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5a2f3197350a96bd4e8f37f2d060fca2a7af830aa0804ce07ba32b7725d73503 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a2f3197350a96bd4e8f37f2d060fca2a7af830aa0804ce07ba32b7725d73503 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -rn libabw-0.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #2) > Hi David. > > There is only a point in discussion: the compilation involves a file > (src/lib/gentoken.pl) with triple license MPL 1.1 / GPLv3.0+ / LGPLv3.0+. > This is a Mixed Source Licensing Scenario > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario > so License tag should be "MPLv2.0 and (MPL 1.1 or GPLv3+ or LGPLv3+)". But gentoken.pl is a build tool. It is on the same level as flex, bison, gperf or any other code generator. The actual input for it, which makes it produce something usable, is in src/lib/tokens.txt.
(In reply to David Tardon from comment #3) > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #2) > > Hi David. > > > > There is only a point in discussion: the compilation involves a file > > (src/lib/gentoken.pl) with triple license MPL 1.1 / GPLv3.0+ / LGPLv3.0+. > > This is a Mixed Source Licensing Scenario > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > > LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario > > so License tag should be "MPLv2.0 and (MPL 1.1 or GPLv3+ or LGPLv3+)". > > But gentoken.pl is a build tool. It is on the same level as flex, bison, > gperf or any other code generator. The actual input for it, which makes it > produce something usable, is in src/lib/tokens.txt. Ops! I'm sorry. I didn't know. :P Package approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libabw Short Description: A library for import of AbiWord files Owners: dtardon caolanm Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: libabw New Branches: f20 Owners: dtardon caolanm We need this as a dependency for libreoffice 4.2.