[Bug 560240] Review Request: libxls - Library for parsing Excel (XLS) files

[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=560240

--- Comment #2 from Chen Lei <supercyper at 163.com> 2010-01-31 23:34:27 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> * The svn checkout appears to be pre-release snapshot of 0.3.0. Hence the
> following applies:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages
> 
It seems to be formal release, the upstream released binrary for libxls 0.3.0,
but there's no source for libxls 0.3.0.
See http://sourceforge.net/projects/libxls/

> * Can you take a look at the many format string warnings in the build.log? They
> are reason to be concerned.
> 
> * The build.log also prints warnings about automake/aclocal, which should be
> fixed by regenerating the autotools framework prior to packaging the tarball.
> 
> * I highly recommend to move the %check section _after_ the %install section
> and to point LD_LIBRARY_PATH at the files in %buildroot. That has helped with
> discovering packaging mistakes at least a couple of times before.



I'll try to fix those problem.
> 
> > License: LGPLv2+
> 
> * src/getopt.c is not LGPLv2+ but original BSD with advertising clause, which
> is not GPL compatible according to the licensing matrix.
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#Original_BSD_License_.28BSD_with_advertising.29
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
> 
> * All other files in src/ are LGPLv3+.    
Should the license for libxls be changed to LGPLv3 and BSD with advertising?

-- 
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.