Spec URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/tla.spec SRPM URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/tla-1.3.5-1.fc8.src.rpm Description: GNU Arch 1 (also known as tla) is a revision control system, similar in purpose to tools such as CVS, SCCS, and Subversion. It is used to keep track of the changes made to a source tree and to help programmers combine and otherwise manipulate changes made by multiple people or at different times. TLA is a punning acronym that stands for either "true love, always" and "three letter acronym".
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=235504 I inherited this package from Josh Boyer, who last updated it on August 23. Since then there has been a upstream release and I would like to pass this through a review.
Builds OK (although with a staggering amount of warnings) and rpmlint is clean. The license tag is wrong. The source doesn't include any statement of GPL version, but docs-tla/index.tst says version 2 or later, so you should have License: GPLv2+. I have to say, that's one ugly build process. I note you remove all of the original changelog. It's fine to remove old stuff, but I'd be uneasy about removing all of it. Really, the only blocker I see is that the License: tag needs a '+', so I'll go ahead and approve this and you can fix it when you take over the package. But do think about keeping some of the original changelog entries. * source files match upstream: 40aa82ca9678878ecdcac94d8890a63fe8064141a53d1652409a5c1383fcae06 tla-1.3.5.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently (It's about as clean as you can ask for when the build process is so nasty.) * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field does not match the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: tla = 1.3.5-1.fc9 = /bin/sh diffutils libneon.so.27()(64bit) patch tar * %check is present and all tests pass. (Test output is too long to paste.) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED
(In reply to comment #2) > The license tag is wrong. The source doesn't include any statement of GPL > version, but docs-tla/index.tst says version 2 or later, so you should have > License: GPLv2+. It is not so simple. There is a twist in every Arch tale. Have a look: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2007-11/msg00002.html So as per upstream's advice I am keeping License as GPLv2 until they migrate to GPLv3+ or something else. > I note you remove all of the original changelog. It's fine to remove old > stuff but I'd be uneasy about removing all of it. The problem is that there are too many changelog files. I was at a loss to figure out which one(s) to include in the package.
The problem is that thread doesn't seem to mention the documentation file which explicitly states GPLv2+. I don't believe it's smart to trust an unauthenticated mailing list post over what's actually in the tarball, but if you're going to do that kind of thing you need to document what you're doing by including copies of the relevant messages in your package. About the changelog, I was speaking of %changelog in the spec. You should of course always include all relevant changelog files along with the rest of the documentation from the tarball itself.
(In reply to comment #4) > The problem is that thread doesn't seem to mention the documentation file which > explicitly states GPLv2+. I don't believe it's smart to trust an > unauthenticated mailing list post over what's actually in the tarball, Alright. I shall use GPLv2+.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: tla Short Description: A version control system Owners: rishi Branches: F-7 F-8 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: no
cvs done.
Strike that last comment... this package already appears to be in fedora. Is this a different package by the same name? Set it back to be owned by it's maintainer for now until we can get this figured out.
(In reply to comment #8) > Strike that last comment... this package already appears to be in fedora. > Is this a different package by the same name? > > Set it back to be owned by it's maintainer for now until we can get this figured > out. Those two are the same package. I inherited tla from Josh Boyer (see comment #1). I was not sure whether I needed to request the CVS again as there had been some changes (eg., %description). Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry for the confusion here too. ;( I have reset you back to owner, so you should be all set now. Let me know if you need any further cvs changes.