[Bug 234612] Review Request: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object middleware)
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Aug 22 12:49:48 UTC 2007
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: Ice - The Internet Communications Engine (Object middleware)
------- Additional Comments From mefoster at gmail.com 2007-08-22 08:49 EST -------
(In reply to comment #30)
I'm working on this. I've made most of the changes, but I'd like some advice on
a couple of them.
> A: ruby-libs dependency
> - This package has "BuildRequires: ruby-libs" and
> -ruby subpackage has "Requires: ruby(abi) = 1.8"
> For consistency (i.e. to avoid that this package is
> rebuild against ruby 1.9), IMO "BuildRequires: ruby-libs"
> should be replaced with "ruby(abi) = 1.8".
You can't actually "BuildRequire: ruby(abi)" ... what I've got there right now
is consistent with my reading of the Ruby packaging guidelines
(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Ruby). NB: I don't actually use Ruby ...
> D. naming
> - Usually foo-devel package should have the corresponding
> package named foo.
> IMO -cxx-devel subpackage should just be named as
The thing is, the main ice package provides a large number of runtime files and
documentation, as well as a set of .so.* libraries (that the runtime files are
linked to). The c++-devel package adds two tools and a set of .h files and .so
links so that you can build Ice packages using c++ -- it is clearly a c++
development package, not an overall "-devel" package. I can see the argument for
calling it "ice-devel", but that's a bit confusing because that sounds like it's
*the* Ice development package when in truth it's really just for C++.
> 4. All source codes check (especially license issue check)
> - Well, this is extremely hard.. Actually there are (in total)
> 10448 files (the most number in the packages I have reviewed...)
> I may skip this check during review, however if I find any issues
> I will report later.
I've done some preliminary looking around. It seems that the majority of source
files are under the "Ice license", which is the GPLv2 with exceptions for
OpenSSL and Orca Robotics components. Here are some numbers (just simple "grep"
for now ...)
- 10448 files
- 6944 have the Ice license
- 13 have GPLv2 "or later"
A lot of the remainder are in the "test" or "demo" directories, which I don't
build at all -- is that an issue? There are also a lot of ".depend" files which
have no license information at all. And then there are the *.png/*.gif files in
the documentation ...
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
More information about the package-review