[Bug 468604] Review Request: echolinux - Linux echolink client

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468604





--- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-03-12 23:47:14 EDT ---
I cannot find anywhere in the source where the version of the GPL in use is
mentioned, which means (according to the gpl.txt file) any version can be used.
 This implies that the license should be "GPL+".  Do you see some place in the
source where "GPLv2 (only)" is mentioned?

I'm seeing testgui_cb.c, testgui.c, servercode.c and threadFuncs.c compiled
with the wrong compiler flags.  Not coincidentally, these files are missing
from the debuginfo package.

rpmlint says:
  echolinux.src: W: strange-permission generate-echolinux-tarball.sh 0755
rpmlint doesn't like to see executable files in an srpm, but I don't really
understand why.  I don't think it's a problem.

* source files match upstream (compared manually).
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field does not match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
X compiler flags are not correct.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
X debuginfo package is incomplete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   config(echolinux) = 0.17a-3.fc11
   echolinux = 0.17a-3.fc11
   echolinux(x86-64) = 0.17a-3.fc11
  =
   config(echolinux) = 0.17a-3.fc11
   libX11.so.6()(64bit)
   libXpm.so.4()(64bit)
   libforms.so.1()(64bit)
   libgsm.so.1()(64bit)

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.
* desktop files valid and installed properly.

-- 
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.