[Bug 458367] Review Request: ocaml-ocamlgraph - OCaml library for arc and node graphs

Wed Aug 13 15:21:32 UTC 2008

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=458367

--- Comment #6 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler at dwheeler.com>  2008-08-13 11:21:30 EDT ---
See my previous comments for just "looking at the spec file overall".

Below is my review.  The big issue is that the license is wrong, it's the
_LGPLv2_ not the _GPLv2_.  It's actually the LGPLv2 + an additional permission;
see below on how I think you should handle that.

Using http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines :

- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
FAIL.  As noted above, there's an rpmlint complaint not justified in the .spec
file.  Justify or fix.

- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
OK

- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
OK

- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
OK (other than what I've noted elsewhere)

- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines
OK (claimed GPLv2, actually LGPLv2, see beow)

- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
FAIL.  It's actually the LGPLv2, not the GPLv2.  See LICENSE.

In _addition_, it's not really the stock LGPLv2 license.  It's the LGPLv2,
_plus_ an additional permission granting additional privileges
(it looks a LOT like the GNAT additional privileges):
"As a special exception to the GNU Library General Public License, you
may link, statically or dynamically, a "work that uses the Library"
with a publicly distributed version of the Library to produce an
executable file containing portions of the Library, and distribute
that executable file under terms of your choice, without any of the
additional requirements listed in clause 6 of the GNU Library General
Public License. By "a publicly distributed version of the Library", we
mean either the unmodified Library as distributed, or a
modified version of the Library that is distributed under the
conditions defined in clause 3 of the GNU Library General Public
License. This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons
why the executable file might be covered by the GNU Library General
Public License."

The LGPLv2 is a free software and open source software license.
Since adding _additional_ permissions cannot remove that status, this
license is as well.  So here's what I suggest:

1. Use "LGPLv2 with exceptions" as the license, per
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing  In this case, it's not really an
"exception", it's an "additional privilege", but there's no standard way to
denote that; "with exceptions" is the best we can do.
2. Don't bother reporting to fedora-legal-list at redhat.com.  Since the
license only adds additional privileges it cannot possibly NOT be a FLOSS
license.

- MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK, /usr/share/doc/ocaml-ocamlgraph-0.99c/LICENSE

- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK

- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
OK

- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK.
3aff22a06afaa105ca40e31a5e15cf21  ocamlgraph-0.99c.tar.gz
3aff22a06afaa105ca40e31a5e15cf21  ../SOURCES/ocamlgraph-0.99c.tar.gz

- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
OK

- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed
in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work
on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next
to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla
entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the
comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and
replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as
blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc ,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
N/A.
Tested with koji build --scratch dist-f9
../SRPMS/ocaml-ocamlgraph-0.99c-1.fc9.src.rpm

- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK.
Tested with koji build --scratch dist-f9
../SRPMS/ocaml-ocamlgraph-0.99c-1.fc9.src.rpm

- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A

- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
N/A; see OCaml guidelines for more about OCaml libraries.

- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
N/A.

- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.
OK.  Checked rpmls and .spec file itself, looks good.

- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
OK.

- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK

- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
OK

- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines
OK

- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines
OK

- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
N/A

- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
OK

- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
N/A

- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
N/A

- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
N/A

- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
N/A

- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
N/A

- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
N/A

- MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of
the Packaging Guidelines . If you feel that your packaged GUI application does
not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your
explanation.
N/A

- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
OK

- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
OK

- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK

SHOULD Items:

- SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
N/A

- SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
N/A. Doesn't have any translations, but I don't see evidence of translations
easily available.

- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.
OK.  Builds in koji, thus builds in Mock.

- SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
OK. (Tested with Koji, above)

- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
OK. It has a %check section, which does that.

- SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
N/A

- SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
N/A

- SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
N/A

- SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for
further information.
N/A

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.