[Bug 574249] New: Review Request: mbox2eml - Split mbox mailboxes into single .eml files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: mbox2eml - Split mbox mailboxes into single .eml files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574249
Summary: Review Request: mbox2eml - Split mbox mailboxes into single .eml files Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: ville.skytta@iki.fi QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
http://scop.fedorapeople.org/packages/mbox2eml.spec http://scop.fedorapeople.org/packages/mbox2eml-0.1.1-3.fc13.src.rpm
Mbox2eml splits mbox mailboxes into single .eml files. It is highly configurable and written in C++ to gain maximum performance using a minimum of RAM.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mbox2eml/
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=574249
manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2010-03-17 23:19:49 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [x] Rpmlint output: source RPM: empty binary RPM:empty [x] Package is not relocatable. [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2+ according to the bundled COPYING file License type: GPL+ according to the spec [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. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. SHA1SUM of source file: 8fa8cf4ebeea239fd2149a94ee607142ddceabb1 mbox2eml-0.1.1.tar.gz [x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [-] The spec file handles locales properly. [-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [-] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [x] Package consistently uses macros. [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present. [-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la). [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Final provides and requires are sane.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS === [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: devel/x86_64 [-] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Tested on: [?] Package functions as described. [-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct. [-] File based requires are sane. [-] %check is present and the test passes.
=== Issues === 1. As far as i can see, the source files include no license specification, but the bundled COPYING is the stock GPLv2+. I think that the license tag in the spec file must be adjusted according to that. I'll trust your decision about this.
================ *** APPROVED *** ================
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=574249
--- Comment #2 from Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi 2010-03-18 02:49:33 EDT --- Thanks for the review.
The bundled COPYING is indeed the GPL v2 text, and it states "If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation." which means that GPL+ is the right thing to do.
See also the GPL+ entry at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:
"A GPL or LGPL licensed package that lacks any statement of what version that it's licensed under in the source code/program output/accompanying docs is technically licensed under *any* version of the GPL or LGPL, not just the version in whatever COPYING file they include."
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=574249
Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi 2010-03-18 13:43:41 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mbox2eml Short Description: Split mbox mailboxes into single .eml files Owners: scop Branches: F-13 InitialCC:
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=574249
--- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-03-19 16:01:52 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
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=574249
Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #5 from Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi 2010-03-19 16:52:31 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2063684
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=574249
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-19 17:04:13 EDT --- mbox2eml-0.1.1-3.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mbox2eml-0.1.1-3.fc13
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=574249
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-04-09 00:03:17 EDT --- mbox2eml-0.1.1-3.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=574249
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |mbox2eml-0.1.1-3.fc13 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla