[Bug 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538



--- Comment #9 from Christian Glombek  ---
Ok, thanks :) Should this be noted somewhere? (It's not a big deal, but it got
me asking..)

-- 
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 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538



--- Comment #8 from Florian Weimer  ---
(In reply to Christian Glombek from comment #7)
> Why is this pkg called libnsl2 instead of just libnsl?

Because of its soname.  libnsl.so.1 is provided by glibc.

-- 
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 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538

Christian Glombek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||c...@petersen-glombek.de



--- Comment #7 from Christian Glombek  ---
Why is this pkg called libnsl2 instead of just libnsl?

-- 
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 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538

Petr Kubat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-11-01 08:22:51



--- Comment #6 from Petr Kubat  ---
I guess this can be closed now.

-- 
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 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libnsl2

-- 
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 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538

Petr Kubat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+
   |needinfo?(pku...@redhat.com |
   |)   |



--- Comment #4 from Petr Kubat  ---
Hi Matej,

I think you are right in that it might fit the Mixed Source Licensing scenario
more than the Multiple License scenario. In that case I have no issues with the
package getting through as is since it seems there is no mention of a breakdown
having to be present in the guidelines.

It would however be nice to have a mention in the spec file somewhere that this
is a mixed source licensed 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538

Matej Mužila  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(mmuz...@redhat.co |needinfo?(pku...@redhat.com
   |m)  |)



--- Comment #3 from Matej Mužila  ---
Hi,

I think that breakdown to multiple packages or stating which part of the
package is licensed under which license is not possible, because the library
(libnsl.so.2.0.0) is compiled from files under multiple licenses. I think this
fits to the Mixed Source Licensing Scenario [1].

I think that the only thyng I could do about licensing is to state licensing of
individual files in -devel subpackage.


[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Mixed_Source_Licensing_Scenario

-- 
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 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538

Petr Kubat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||mmuz...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(mmuz...@redhat.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #2 from Petr Kubat  ---
Summary:

The package is licensed under multiple licenses according to the spec file. In
that case a breakdown of which part of the package is licensed using which
license must also be present in the spec file.
Alternatively licensing the package under the less permissive license (LGPLv2+)
should also be ok.

The latest version of the project should be packaged. Latest upstream version
is 1.0.5.

%doc should be present in the packages if possible. Consider adding ChangeLog
and README to %doc.

Package should not use obsolete m4 macros. This can be fixed later but upstream
should get notified about this.

-- 
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 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538



--- Comment #1 from Petr Kubat  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated



= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)",
 "Unknown or generated", "LGPL (v2.1)". 13 files have unknown license.
 Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /tmp/1432538-libnsl2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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.
 Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 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.
 Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
 libnsl2-debuginfo
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English 

[Bug 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538

Petr Kubat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



-- 
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 1432538] Review Request: libnsl2 - Public client interface library for NIS(YP) and NIS+

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1432538

Petr Kubat  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||pku...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|pku...@redhat.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