Bug 1812855 - Review Request: php-pecl-rpminfo - RPM information
Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-rpminfo - RPM information
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Neal Gompa
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2020-03-12 10:55 UTC by Remi Collet
Modified: 2020-03-26 06:39 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
ngompa13: fedora-review?

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Remi Collet 2020-03-12 10:55:36 UTC
Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-rpminfo.git/plain/php-pecl-rpminfo.spec?h=fedora&id=9533766ede66dbd6f986df9fc2f621f15f57214d
SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-rpminfo-0.3.0-1.fedora.src.rpm
Retrieve RPM information using librpm.

Available functions:
- rpmvercmp to compare 2 EVRs
- rpminfo to retrieve information from a RPM file
- rpmdbinfo to rerieve information from an installed RPM
- rpmdbsearch to search installed RPMs

Fedora Account System Username: remi

NOTICE: fedora-review is unable to download proper spec file (kown issue)

F32 scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42428900

Comment 3 Neal Gompa 2020-03-13 11:32:41 UTC
Taking this review.

Comment 5 Remi Collet 2020-03-24 14:30:33 UTC
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3)
> Taking this review.

Have you find some time to start working on this the review ?

Comment 7 Neal Gompa 2020-03-25 16:37:28 UTC
> # License: CC-BY-SA
> # http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

I'm not sure this is an okay license for spec files. Creative Commons discourages the usage of CC licenses for code. The FPCA already defaults spec files to be licensed MIT[1], can you license it as something that makes more sense for code?

[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Fedora_Project_Contributor_Agreement

Comment 8 Remi Collet 2020-03-26 06:38:16 UTC
Perhaps, I'm the only one, but I really think the "default" license in FPCA is a mess, and that we need to have explicit license on all spec file.

When I start adding a License headers on all my spec files, I raise the question on "legal", and the answer was that this is ok.
I now have hundreds of spec files using this license, and don't plan to change this.

Comment 9 Remi Collet 2020-03-26 06:39:29 UTC
P.S., and I think spec file are more documentation / parameters (for rpmbuild) than real code ;)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.