[Bug 438543] Review Request: Synopsis - Source-code introspection tool.

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: Synopsis - Source-code introspection tool.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438543





------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp  2008-05-02 14:30 EST -------
Okay, almost clean.

For 0.11-2:
* License issue:
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsis/Parsers/Cxx/occ/HashTable.cc	Xerox
Synopsis/Parsers/Cxx/occ/HashTable.hh	Xerox
Synopsis/Parsers/Cxx/occ/MetaClass.cc	Xerox
Synopsis/Parsers/Cxx/occ/MetaClass.hh	Xerox
Synopsis/Parsers/Cxx/occ/QuoteClass.cc	Xerox
Synopsis/Parsers/Cxx/occ/QuoteClass.hh	Xerox
Synopsis/Parsers/IDL/			GPLv2+
Synopsis/Parsers/Python/__init__.py	GPLv2+
src/Synopsis/PTree/generation.cc	Xerox
src/Synopsis/gc/libatomic_ops-1.2/tests/	GPLv2
src/Synopsis/gc/libatomic_ops/test/	GPLv2
--------------------------------------------------------------
  ! The license tag "Xerox" is tagged by spot:
    https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-April/msg00035.html
  - Well, I don't know why Synopsis/Parsers/Python/__init__.py is
    licensed under GPLv2+. I guess you want to release this as LGPLv2+
    (the license holder seems you).

    Currently, the license tag of synopsis (main) package should be
    "LGPLv2+ and Xerox and GPLv2+". note that Xerox and GPLv2+ 
    are incompatible, however on current situation no legal conflict
    is happening.

   The license tags of other subpackages (except for -idl) can be okay
   with LGPLv2+.

(In reply to comment #22)
> I was wrongly installing libSynopsis.so.0.11 with INSTALL_DATA, 
> not INSTALL_PROGRAM.
Now it seems good

> In my local tests (using mock) I still see errors for all the extension modules,
> as they end up with 0775 permissions, instead of 0755. 
> Are you not seeing those  ? 
Actually no.
 
> rpmbuild appears to invoke 'umask 0022', too, 
Actually.

> but those files still appear to be
> group-writable, i.e. have 0775 permission. 
Ummm....

> PS: If I make an official release in the coming days, will that be able to ship
> as part of the upcoming Fedora 9 ?
No problem :)

Anyway as this is NEEDSPONSOR ticket:

-------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Before being sponsored:

This package will be accepted with another few work. 
But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) 
must sponsor you.

Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other 
submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. 
For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) 
are required to "show that you have an understanding 
of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described
on :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored

Usually there are two ways to show this.
A. submit other review requests with enough quality.
B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request
   (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do
   a formal review)

When you have submitted a new review request or have pre-reviewed other 
person's review request, please write the bug number on this bug report 
so that I can check your comments or review request.

Fedora package collection review requests which are waiting for someone to
review can be checked on:
http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html
(NOTE: please don't choose "Merge Review")


Review guidelines are described mainly on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets
------------------------------------------------------------



-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.