Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cmuclmtk/cmuclmtk.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cmuclmtk/cmuclmtk-0.7-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This package provides the CMU Sphinx Language Model Training Kit. It is used to produce language models for consumption by the CMU Sphinx decoders: pocketsphinx, Sphinx3, and Sphinx4. Fedora already has pocketsphinx and Sphinx3 (packaged as cmusphinx3).
I've moved on to Fedora 15, so I've rebuilt this as an fc15.src.rpm. It is otherwise identical. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cmuclmtk/cmuclmtk.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cmuclmtk/cmuclmtk-0.7-1.fc15.src.rpm
Running rpmlint on SRPM: cmuclmtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pocketsphinx -> pocket sphinx, pocket-sphinx, pocketknives cmuclmtk.src: W: invalid-url Source1: cmuclmtk-man.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The first warning should be fine. I think the second is bacause rpmlint is not aware of the .xz extension, so this should also be fine. Running rpmlint on the binary packages: cmuclmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pocketsphinx -> pocket sphinx, pocket-sphinx, pocketknives cmuclmtk.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcmuclmtk.so.0.0.0 exit.5 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The other question I have is about the license. The RPM specification lists "MIT and BSD." I'd like an expert to review the particular license or point to where the text has already been approved.
(In reply to comment #2) > The first warning should be fine. I think the second is bacause rpmlint is not > aware of the .xz extension, so this should also be fine. No, the .xz extension is understood. The warning just indicates that I didn't provide a URL, like http://some.web.site/cmuclmtk-man.tar.xz. That's because I wrote the man pages myself... > The other question I have is about the license. The RPM specification lists > "MIT and BSD." I'd like an expert to review the particular license or point to > where the text has already been approved. That information comes from the top-level "COPYING" file. And, argh! I missed the "for research purposes only" clause in the MIT-like part of that file. I will write to upstream and see if that clause can be removed. If not, then this package cannot go into Fedora. Bummer.
It looks like the research-only clause cannot be removed soon, if at all. I'll close this review for now. If upstream ever manages to purge their codebase of that clause, I'll reopen the review. Thanks for taking a look at the package.