Spec URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libmwaw.spec SRPM URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libmwaw-0.1.7-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: libmwaw contains import filters for some old mac text document formats (MacWrite, ClarisWorks, ... ) It will be a dependency of libreoffice 4.1 .
I think the headers don't explicitly say GPLv2+ anywhere.
(In reply to comment #1) > I think the headers don't explicitly say GPLv2+ anywhere. Anything LGPLv2+ is automatically GPLv2+, so I do not think this is a problem.
Full review below. TODO items: - MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must Requires: pkgconfig (for directory ownership and usability). [1] => -devel needs Requires: pkgconfig - MUST: The package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing breakdown [2] - SHOULD: Comments on status of patches (upstreamable, upstreamed?) - OTHER: Upstream should be notified about incorrect FSF address of libmwaw-0.1.7/src/tools/zip/zip.cpp - OTHER: install docs in %{_docdir}/%{name} or as %doc? If in %{_docdir}/%{name}, why not just use %{_docdir}/%{name}/ instead of %dir %{_docdir}/%{name} %{_docdir}/%{name}/html ? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ReviewTemplate [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. => -devel requires pkgconfig [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libmwaw-doc => can be ignored [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines => See noted issues [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MPL (v2.0) GPL (unversioned/unknown version) LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MPL (v2.0) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (3 clause)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sandro/.Data/Desktop/928226-libmwaw/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. => %{_libdir}/pkgconfig [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 4 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. => i686, x86_64 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. => no tests seem to be provided [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: libmwaw-0.1.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libmwaw-devel-0.1.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libmwaw-doc-0.1.7-1.fc20.noarch.rpm libmwaw-tools-0.1.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm libmwaw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libwpd -> libido => can be ignored libmwaw-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation => false warning libmwaw-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation => false warning libmwaw-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mwaw2html libmwaw-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mwaw2text libmwaw-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mwaw2raw => not provided by upstream 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint libmwaw-tools libmwaw-devel libmwaw libmwaw-doc libmwaw-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation => false warning libmwaw-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mwaw2html libmwaw-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mwaw2text libmwaw-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mwaw2raw => not provided by upstream libmwaw-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation => false warning libmwaw.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libwpd -> libido libmwaw.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmwaw-0.1.so.1.0.7 /lib64/libwpd-stream-0.9.so.9 => minor, does not cause any unnecessary dependencies 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- libmwaw-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmwaw(x86-64) libmwaw-0.1.so.1()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libwpd-0.9.so.9()(64bit) libwpd-stream-0.9.so.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmwaw-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libmwaw(x86-64) libmwaw-0.1.so.1()(64bit) pkgconfig(libwpd-0.9) pkgconfig(libwpd-stream-0.9) libmwaw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libwpd-0.9.so.9()(64bit) libwpd-stream-0.9.so.9()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libmwaw-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- libmwaw-tools: libmwaw-tools libmwaw-tools(x86-64) libmwaw-devel: libmwaw-devel libmwaw-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libmwaw-0.1) libmwaw: libmwaw libmwaw(x86-64) libmwaw-0.1.so.1()(64bit) libmwaw-doc: libmwaw-doc MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/libmwaw/libmwaw-0.1.7.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5de311e0b87e8fcac727900b816c9d20c2588cbfe1aa46ed4e6eb5fee8421b05 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5de311e0b87e8fcac727900b816c9d20c2588cbfe1aa46ed4e6eb5fee8421b05 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 928226
(oh, I just saw your comment about pkgconfig in the gtkspellmm review request, so ignore ;) )
Spec URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libmwaw.spec SRPM URL: http://dtardon.fedorapeople.org/rpm/libmwaw-0.1.7-1.fc18.src.rpm (In reply to comment #3) > Full review below. TODO items: > > - MUST: The package must contain a comment explaining the multiple licensing > breakdown [2] Fair enough, added. > > - SHOULD: Comments on status of patches (upstreamable, upstreamed?) I would probably make a note if there were a Fedora-specific patch. > > - OTHER: Upstream should be notified about incorrect FSF address of > libmwaw-0.1.7/src/tools/zip/zip.cpp Yes, I know. I have not been in a hurry about this one because the file is not built in the package. > > - OTHER: install docs in %{_docdir}/%{name} or as %doc? If in > %{_docdir}/%{name}, why not just use > %{_docdir}/%{name}/ > instead of > %dir %{_docdir}/%{name} > %{_docdir}/%{name}/html > ? I guess I am just accustomed to this.
All ok, approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: libmwaw Short Description: Import library for some old mac text documents Owners: dtardon caolanm Branches: f19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
fedora-review+ got reset somehow...