[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Flags|fedora-cvs? |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=20YLq3QgURa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at Flags||fedora-review? -- 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=wU24CC7KAHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859
Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
There are a few compiler warnings. Please tell upstream about them!
Shared-lib-calls-exit should be addressed by upstream. Please report if you
haven't already.
Please see below for further tasks!
As soon as you correct the license tag, this package is APPROVED.
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]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[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]: 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.
File doesn't exist, see bottom!
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated, BSD (4 clause). 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/media/speicher1/makerpm/989859-libxls/licensecheck.txt
Due to getopt.c, the overall license should be stated as BSD with
advertising.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
Builds on PPC as well!
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||supercyp...@gmail.com --- Comment #12 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- *** Bug 560240 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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=KK36FSo1dIa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 --- Comment #13 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Thanks Volker. Upstream refuse to add copying file because he thought it's bsd licensed... New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libxls Short Description: A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files Owners: cicku Branches: f19 f20 -- 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=BrqutkTFrba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added 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=iwIq3WvhiRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 --- Comment #9 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- Is it something you expect to be valuable for people? If not, drop it. -- 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=3j4yW8qxSEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://cicku.me/libxls.spec SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libxls-1.3.4-3.fc20.src.rpm -- 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=0NcFz6q989a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 --- Comment #3 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses -- The license should read BSD in the spec file. The example program is not part of the main package. Thus I feel, the main package description should not mention it. The summary of util says libsndfile. I think the description doesn't really fit the util subpackage well either. Can you run the tests? The xls2csv binary causes my build to break with an rpath issue. -- 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=3QscP64Ou5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 --- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #3) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses -- The license should read BSD in the spec file. Fixed. The example program is not part of the main package. Thus I feel, the main package description should not mention it. The summary of util says libsndfile. I think the description doesn't really fit the util subpackage well either. Fixed. Can you run the tests? No rules for test, can you ensure? The xls2csv binary causes my build to break with an rpath issue. I build the library without any problem, not sure about yours, any logs? NEW SPEC URL: http://cicku.me/libxls.spec NEW SRPM URL: http://cicku.me/libxls-1.3.4-2.fc20.src.rpm -- 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=kNg412FHWta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rc040...@freenet.de --- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #4) (In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #3) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses -- The license should read BSD in the spec file. Fixed. The example program is not part of the main package. Why are you shipping it? If it's just an example, it should not be shipped as *-util. If it's an utility, then packaging would make sense. Besides this, due to its small side I'd recommend to put the xls2csv into the main package instead of putting it into a *-util subpackage. Can you run the tests? No rules for test, can you ensure? The rules are there (make check), it's just that this package is broken. The xls2csv binary causes my build to break with an rpath issue. During builds, binaries being linked against just having been built shared-libs occasionally require an explicit LD_LIBRARY_PATH=path to *.so in builddir being set. e.g. something along the lines of make check LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$(pwd)/somewhere could be neccessary. Another common issue in such situations is config-files not being found, because they are not installed, yet. I haven't tried to check what may apply here. I build the library without any problem, not sure about yours, any logs? I guess you have your package already installed and are not building in a clean environment. -- 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=yYhn5cRwT2a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859
--- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
%{_bindir}/xls2csv
$ repoquery --whatprovides /usr/bin/xls2csv
catdoc-0:0.94.2-11.fc19.x86_64
$ repoquery --whatprovides /usr/bin/\*xls2csv
catdoc-0:0.94.2-11.fc19.x86_64
xls2csv-0:1.06-14.fc19.noarch
--
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=OU3uERqfkXa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 --- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- configure: catdoc users: avoid xls2csv conflicts, use ./configure --program-prefix=lib to get libxls2csv -- 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=jkkBn3OR8da=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com --- (In reply to Volker Fröhlich from comment #7) configure: catdoc users: avoid xls2csv conflicts, use ./configure --program-prefix=lib to get libxls2csv After a consideration, I think that I can drop the xls2csv, do you agree? -- 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=9ztsTgsu1Qa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 989859] Review Request: libxls - A multiplatform C/C++ library for parsing Excel files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989859 Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: libxls - A |Review Request: libxls - A |multiplatform C/C++ library |multiplatform C/C++ library |for parsing Excel(TM) files |for parsing Excel files -- 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=PQVrYYxvIMa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
