Spec URL: http://uwog.net/~uwog/pyabiword.spec SRPM URL: http://uwog.net/~uwog/pyabiword-0.6.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Python bindings for libabiword
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/pyabiword-0.6.1-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/rnorwood/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/pyabiword-0.6.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm pyabiword.i386: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. o AUTHORS and COPYING are good candidates for marking as %doc. (COPYING must be included). Also, the contents of the examples/ directory could be included. o The source files don't include a license, which they should. The contents of the COPYING file (GPLv2) isn't enough to indicate the license. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ o The 'Vendor' tag should not be used according to Fedora packaging guidelines. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Everything else looks ok to me. Once the above issues are fixed, I can approve.
Oops, I shouldn't have set the review flag to '-' while awaiting these fixes.
Spec URL: http://uwog.net/~uwog/pyabiword.spec SRPM URL: http://uwog.net/~uwog/pyabiword-0.6.1-2.fc9.src.rpm Changes: - Added documentation, including examples - Removed old Vendor tag Re licensing: I think the implied version is GPLv2+, as pyabiword links with libabiword. I'd prefer to update the spec when I get explicit approval from all contributors though.
Sorry, I neglected to check for missing BuildRequires - These needed to be added for the package to build in koji: BuildRequires: gtk2-devel BuildRequires: libglade2-devel BuildRequires: libgnomeprintui22-devel BuildRequires: goffice04-devel BuildRequires: enchant-devel BuildRequires: fribidi-devel BuildRequires: wv-devel
Assuming license issues and BR's are added, this gets a pass from me.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pyabiword Short Description: Python bindings for libabiword Owners: uwog Branches: F-9 devel OLPC-3 InitialCC: uwog Cvsextras Commits: yes
Can we please sort out the license before importing/building? We don't want to distribute something we are unsure of the license of...
I am _sure_ it is GPL1+ now, because that is actually how the license works: if no explicit version is given, and that copyright file is included, then it is GPLv1+. That's just how it works. I asked some of the pyabiword devs, and they agree with that. Now, that does not mean that I can't make the next release v2+ (which I will do, but 'relicencing' always takes time), but _this_ release is GPLv1+.
Ah indeed... sorry for the confusion on my part here, I was thinking there was no indication what the license was at all. :( cvs done.
Marc, I think you can close this now. Thanks.
Yep, thx.