SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/kzak/util-linux/util-linux-ng-2.13-0.52.fc8.src.rpm Description: http://kernel.org/~kzak/util-linux-ng/ The util-linux-ng is a fork of the original util-linux project. The goal of the util-linux-ng is a transparent and reliable development that follows the Linux kernel and Linux distributions. For more details see discusion at lkml 6 months ago. Please, review ASAP! $ rpmlint util-linux-ng-2.13-0.52.fc8.src.rpm W: util-linux-ng unversioned-explicit-obsoletes clock .. this Warning is legacy from old util-linux. I have no clue how to fix it.
Note, don't worry with release number. The version (upstream 2.13-rc3) is not final yet. I'll update to the final 2.13-1 before Fedora Freeze.
Blockers: * Licensing: - "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, must be included as documentation." - Please update License: per Packaging/LicensingGuidelines * BuildRoot value is invalid, see Packaging/Guidelines * Inconsistent use of both BuildRoot and %{buildroot} * Use %config(noreplace) - at least for 60-raw.rules, I'm not sure about the files in /etc/pam.d/ Possible improvements: * Obsoletes: clock - seems to be pre-Fedora, can be removed IMHO. Same for timeconfig. * mnt_test_sysinfo.c:74: warning: right shift count >= width of type on i386 - probably should be fixed upstream * BuildRequires: sed is unnecessary Questions: * does floppy really need %makeinstall? * why is the [ "%{_infodir}" != "%{_prefix}/info" ... ] section necessary? * why is (gzip -9nf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_infodir}/ipc.info) necessary?
(In reply to comment #2) > Blockers: > * Licensing: > - "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, must be included as documentation." Fixed, added README.licensing and licenses/* to %doc. > * BuildRoot value is invalid, see Packaging/Guidelines Fixed. > * Inconsistent use of both BuildRoot and %{buildroot} Fixed. > * Use %config(noreplace) - at least for 60-raw.rules, I'm not sure about the > files in /etc/pam.d/ Fixed, the "noreplace" used for pam.d/ files too. > * Obsoletes: clock - seems to be pre-Fedora, can be removed IMHO. Fixed (removed). > Same for timeconfig. Fixed (removed). > * mnt_test_sysinfo.c:74: warning: right shift count >= width of type Fixed (upstream). > * BuildRequires: sed is unnecessary Fixed. > * does floppy really need %makeinstall? No, fixed. > * why is the [ "%{_infodir}" != "%{_prefix}/info" ... ] section necessary? Fixed (removed). > * why is (gzip -9nf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_infodir}/ipc.info) necessary? Fixed (removed). Please, try a new version: http://people.redhat.com/kzak/util-linux/util-linux-ng-2.13-0.53.fc8.x86_64.rpm
Sorry, SRPM: http://people.redhat.com/kzak/util-linux/util-linux-ng-2.13-0.53.fc8.src.rpm
Thanks, one more thing: > - Please update License: per Packaging/LicensingGuidelines Perhaps to: # See README.licensing License: GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and BSD and Public Domain [Should "BSD" be "BSD with advertising"?]
FYI: Maybe you could switch to floppy-0.16? (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=20137)
(In reply to comment #5) > License: GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and BSD and Public Domain > [Should "BSD" be "BSD with advertising"?] Well, fixed in upstream tree. (In reply to comment #6) > FYI: Maybe you could switch to floppy-0.16? > (http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=20137) Good point. Thanks. I need to review this version. Now I'd like to introduce util-linux-ng to Fedora with the old and well tested floppy version. We can update it later. It's nothing urgent. All?
To avoid another iteration - approved, but the approval is conditional on fixing the License field as shown in comment #5.
Yes, I will update in spec file to: License: GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and BSD with advertising and Public Domain
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: util-linux-ng Short Description: basic linux utils Owners: kzak Branches: InitialCC: Commits by cvsextras: no
Note that with a scary license tag like that, you really need to describe somewhere in the spec which files are under which license. See the "Multiple Licensing Scenarios" section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure Please use the new request format.
*** Bug 226520 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***