[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2017-09-05 03:46:21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 --- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-cfitsio -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 Vít Ondruch changed: What|Removed |Added CC||vondr...@redhat.com --- Comment #11 from Vít Ondruch --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #6) Hmm, you are asking on the license of these files, but mainly, they should be preferably regenerated using Bison, shouldn't they? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Use_of_pregenerated_code -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374
Juan Orti changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Juan Orti ---
Approved.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[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.
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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.
[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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 --- Comment #9 from Sandro Mani --- Statement from legal: " > cfitsio is licensed MIT. Is my understanding correct that this special > exception means that these files are also MIT licensed, being > distributed as part of cfitsio, and hence that the license field of the > package only needs to specify MIT? Yes. You may use the bison parser skeleton code under any license terms you wish, assuming cfitsio is not a parser generator (which it does not appear to be)." -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 --- Comment #8 from Sandro Mani --- oh, me too [1] :) https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/E7RRI4KTODK3QS4XI7KJH4P2RT4FJNB3/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 --- Comment #7 from Juan Orti --- I've asked in the legal mailing list about how we must consider these files. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 --- Comment #6 from Sandro Mani --- Hmm, that's actually a tricky one: these files contain /* As a special exception, you may create a larger work that contains part or all of the Bison parser skeleton and distribute that work under terms of your choice, so long as that work isn't itself a parser generator using the skeleton or a modified version thereof as a parser skeleton. [...] */ I'll ask legal if this means that this implies these files are relicensed to MIT. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 --- Comment #5 from Juan Orti --- These files have GPLv3+ license: cfitsio/eval_tab.h cfitsio/eval_y.c The rest looks fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 Juan Orti changed: What|Removed |Added CC||j.orti.alca...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|j.orti.alca...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 --- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani --- Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-cfitsio.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-cfitsio-3.410-1.fc28.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 --- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- pbrobinson's scratch build of mingw-pkg-config?#e46789095e76e3f10f8da9d5c3390029618a5f93 for epel7-archbootstrap and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/mingw-pkg-config?#e46789095e76e3f10f8da9d5c3390029618a5f93 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12038484 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- pbrobinson's scratch build of mingw-qt5-qtbase?#824459d300a4cd07124c3e4967064eec3818d7e2 for epel7-archbootstrap and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/mingw-qt5-qtbase?#824459d300a4cd07124c3e4967064eec3818d7e2 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12038485 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- pbrobinson's scratch build of mingw-qt5-qtdeclarative?#0591cb7cdaa968100fd75da17c3cd72799f2a797 for epel7-archbootstrap and git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/mingw-qt5-qtdeclarative?#0591cb7cdaa968100fd75da17c3cd72799f2a797 failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12038486 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1238374] Review Request: mingw-cfitsio - MinGW Windows CFITSIO library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238374 Sandro Mani changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1238378 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238378 [Bug 1238378] Review Request: mingw-gdal - MinGW Windows GDAL library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
