Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/bilbo/bilbo.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/bilbo/bilbo-0.9-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: Blogging application for Blogger1.0, MetaWeblog, MovableType, and Google GData with WYSIWYG and HTML editing available.
Hi Ben, I just had a quick look at your spec file and the sources. According to the source file headers you should change the license tag to GPLv3+. The included library bilbokblog seems to be licensed under LGPLv2+ (according to COPYING). However, the source file headers refer to its predecessor, the old GNU Library Public License version 2. It should be safe to use the license tag "GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+" for the package, but you should ask upstream to update the file headers.
Fixed here and reported[1] [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bilbo/+bug/415555
OK, there's already an upstream comment to the reported problem. However, they probably didn't quite understand the problem. COPYING.LGPL in subfolder bilbokblog contains the text of LGPL v2 (GNU *Lesser* General Public License) but the file headers refer to the outdated GNU *Library* public license. Maybe you could point them to this ambiguity. Anyway, it shouldn't be a blocker for this package. Could you please update the spec file?
Here is the full review of your package. There are just a few issues to be fixed (see below). rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-11-i386/result/*.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. --------------------------------- keys used in following checklist: [+] OK [.] OK, not applicable [X] needs work --------------------------------- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license. [X] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - please update the License field to "GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+" [X] MUST: Files containing license texts must be added to %doc. - you should also include bilbokblog/COPYING containing the L(ibrary)GPL license text (rename it to COPYING.LGPL) [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources in the SRPM must match the upstream source. - md5 hash is 396da4f5fc1d91d692eefaf8e9871795 [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile,... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable,... - package not relocatable [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: %clean section must contain rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. - no large docs [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [.] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. - no header files packaged [.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [.] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' [.] MUST: .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. - no .so files/symlinks without suffixes packaged [.] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency - no devel package [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [X] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. - in the %install section, you should check the .desktop file integrity with desktop-file-validate (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Desktop_files) [+] MUST: Packages must not own files/dirs already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: %install MUST start with run rm -rf %{buildroot} [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - builds in mock [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - builds in koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1628570 [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. - application seems to work properly [X] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. - used scriptlets are required and sane - you have to update the icon cache using gtk-update-icon-cache (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache)
Fixed (with backported patches for licensing): Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/bilbo/bilbo.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/bilbo/bilbo-0.9-3.fc11.src.rpm
Applying bilbo-0.9-license-headers.patch is redundant since it doesn't change the program code and has no effect on building the package. So it can be omitted. Beside that, everything looks fine now. The package is APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: bilbo Short Description: Blogging client, focused on simplicity and usability Owners: mathstuf Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
CVS done.
Built for F-11 (Rawhide has dependency issues), closing.