[Bug 641690] Review Request: k4dirstat - Graphical Directory Statistics for Used Disk Space

[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=641690

Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tcallawa at redhat.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tcallawa at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #8 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> 2010-12-02 11:50:01 EST ---
=== Review ===

== Bad ==

License: GPLv2 and LGPLv2 is not quite right. The code is clearly a mix of GPL
and LGPL, but the version is never specified by upstream, so we need to ask
upstream to clarify if a version of each license is preferred (the versioning
in the License texts doesn't tell us the answer to this because of how the GPL
and LGPL are written).

Alternately, we can simply assume that any version of the licenses are
applicable (License: GPL+ and LGPLv2+), because of how the GPL and LGPL are
written, but I think it would be easiest for you to ask upstream to indicate
which versions of those licenses the code is under. Also, ask them to indicate
the versioning in their source code so that it will be clear for everyone.

== Good ==

- rpmlint says:
k4dirstat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US du -> dew, doe, Du
k4dirstat.src: W: strange-permission k4dirstat-snapshot.sh 0744L
k4dirstat.src: W: invalid-url Source0: k4dirstat-2.7.0.tar.bz2
k4dirstat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US du -> dew, doe, Du
k4dirstat.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary k4dirstat

All safe to ignore.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (GPLv2 or LGPLv2) not OK, text in %doc
- spec file legible, in am. english
- package compiles on F-14 (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- .desktop file ok

== Notes ==
* %clean is unnecessary in active Fedora targets, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean (it is still
needed if you need this package for EPEL)
* BuildRoot is unnecessary in active Fedora targets, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag (it is still
needed if you need this package for EPEL)
* It is no longer necessary to delete the buildroot as the first step of
%install in active Fedora targets. It is still needed if you need this package
for EPEL.

Get the license clarification and update the tag, and I will approve this
package. The items in Notes would be nice to see resolved at the same time, but
I won't require them.

-- 
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.