[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 David Tardon changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from David Tardon --- fedora-review+ got reset somehow... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PFZDsOogIU&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 David Tardon changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Flags|fedora-review+ | Flags||fedora-review? Last Closed||2013-04-28 02:21:19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4DINOGduR7&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0GqZrRf2uZ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=s8k4pL369V&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 David Tardon changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from David Tardon --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libmwaw Short Description: Import library for some old mac text documents Owners: dtardon caolanm Branches: f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wq6Lu4pvDE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Sandro Mani --- All ok, approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zFFGjwwxV5&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226
--- Comment #5 from David Tardon ---
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.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9l5lIlx1lw&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 --- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani --- (oh, I just saw your comment about pkgconfig in the gtkspellmm review request, so ignore ;) ) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wdpNIqNEN4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226
Sandro Mani changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||manisan...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|manisan...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani ---
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 packa
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 --- Comment #2 from David Tardon --- (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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LMBRtDtTq6&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 Volker Fröhlich changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #1 from Volker Fröhlich --- I think the headers don't explicitly say GPLv2+ anywhere. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cyXX2upzRH&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 928226] Review Request: libmwaw: import library for some old mac text documents
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928226 David Tardon changed: What|Removed |Added CC||dtar...@redhat.com Alias||libmwaw -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oNabGnGxrR&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
