Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226419
Summary: Merge Review: sip Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: than@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: sip
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/sip/ Initial Owner: than@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226419
Garrett Holmstrom gholms@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gholms@fedoraproject.org, | |rdieter@math.unl.edu AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gholms@fedoraproject.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226419
Garrett Holmstrom gholms@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from Garrett Holmstrom gholms@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-16 18:31:27 EST --- Below are the issues I found. I will attach a full review shortly.
- License field in spec is correct sipgen/parser.c is GPLv3+ with exceptions sipgen/parser.h is GPLv3+ with exceptions
A quick IRC discussion indicated that this likely needs to appear in the License field somewhere. I'm hoping spot gets back to me for confirmation about it to be sure, though perhaps it would be better to just ask legal to be extra certain.
- License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed sip-macros package does not pull in license files
It looks like you create macros.sip yourself based on the program's API version. What license does it have? Can you include that license along with the sip-macros package?
- Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues Upstream MD5: No longer on upstream's server Your MD5: 0a591ef6e59aa16e56822d3eb9fe21b8 sip-4.10.5.tar.gz
Unfortunately, upstream seems to clean out old tarballs quite frequently. I wouldn't block the review because of that, though.
- Each %files section contains %defattr The python3 packages lack %defattr macros
Please add %defattr macros to the python3 packages' %files sections.
I hope that helps!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226419
--- Comment #2 from Garrett Holmstrom gholms@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-16 18:31:59 EST --- Created attachment 460953 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=460953 Review for F14 package sip-4.10.5-2.fc14
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226419
--- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2010-11-16 18:42:08 EST --- git's master branch has the latest sip (which should be available upstream), and I *think* defattr fixed too, fwiw.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226419
--- Comment #4 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2010-11-16 18:42:48 EST --- nvm, defattr fail there too. :( fixing that now, easyfix.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226419
Garrett Holmstrom gholms@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226419
--- Comment #5 from Garrett Holmstrom gholms@fedoraproject.org 2010-11-17 14:06:44 EST --- The word from spot is that the License field should read "GPLv2 or GPLv3 and (GPLv3+ with exceptions)". The spec file should also contain a comment explaining the bison files' license.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226419
Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2011-09-23 14:46:57
--- Comment #6 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2011-09-23 14:46:57 EDT --- OK, updated License: accordingly in master/ branch.
Stick a fork in this sucker, finally.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org