Fedora Merge Review: libIDL http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/libIDL/ Initial Owner: mclasen
rpmlint output: libIDL.src: W: no-url-tag libIDL.x86_64: W: no-url-tag libIDL.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libIDL-2.so.0.0.0 exit.5 libIDL-debuginfo.x86_64: W: no-url-tag libIDL-devel.x86_64: W: no-url-tag 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. - Add source url, maybe will have to do with just http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/sources/libIDL/ if software does not have a homepage. - Enable SMP make. - For info file installation change Requires(post): /sbin/install-info to Requires(post): info Requires(preun): info MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSFIX - ltmain.sh, parser.c and parser.h are under GPLv2+. License should thus probably be LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. OK MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK MUST: Clean section exists. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSFIX - Add BUGS and MAINTAINERS to %doc. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK - You might want to change the requires to %{name} instead of libIDL. MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. OK MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK
Ping.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. NEEDSFIX - ltmain.sh, parser.c and parser.h are under GPLv2+. License should thus probably be LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+. ltmain.sh is a part of libtool. I don't see how that could be relevant for the license of this package.
(In reply to comment #3) > MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > NEEDSFIX > - ltmain.sh, parser.c and parser.h are under GPLv2+. License should thus > probably be LGPLv2+ and GPLv2+. > > ltmain.sh is a part of libtool. I don't see how that could be relevant for the > license of this package. Duh, what have I been thinking..
parser.c states: " As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof as a parser skeleton." So the licensing is probably OK after all.
ping?
ping again?
ping what ? kindly state what you want
(In reply to comment #8) > ping what ? kindly state what you want Please address the issues in comment #1 (except the license issue which was cleared out) so that the package can be approved and the merge review closed.
ping mclasen
Created attachment 439502 [details] Patch against rawhide spec
See patch in comment #11 for suggested changes. Now as I look at them, they're mostly cosmetic, so I don't see any reason not to approve this review. APPROVED Maybe you'll want to go through them quickly, anyhow.
Created attachment 439520 [details] Patch against rawhide spec
Patch looks fine to commit, no objections. If you have the privileges to do a build with it, feel free to that too. Otherwise, I'll do it at some point.
OK, all done!