[Bug 529496] Review Request: libmtag - An advanced C music tagging library with a simple API

[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=529496

--- Comment #19 from Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> 2010-01-12 11:56:52 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> No reviewer will approve a src.rpm that gives 404 Not Found already for the 
> source tarball.

Again, I don't know what you are talking about:
% spectool -g libmtag.spec
“./libmtag-0.3.2.tar.gz” saved

> And with a manual download by visiting the web page, the result is:

[...]

> That's something you do need to fix, because so far it doesn't demonstrate that
> you know your stuff.

[...]

That's 200 words just to say "update the SRPM". An SRPM is essentially a .spec
+ a tarball. The spec is the same posted since the beginning, and the tarball
was released as mentioned in comment #11. But if you want me to do 'rpmbuild
-bs libmtag.spec', ok, will do.

[...]

> [Applying the LGPL]
> 
> > * The text says 'library', and I often have to change it to 'program'
> > * If the FSF changes their address (again), all the notices
> [snip]
> 
> That's splitting-hairs again. The tarball in the src.rpm, which is presented
> for review, does not mention the licensing at all. That's the worst-case.

Not "is presented"; "was presented".

> You were pointed at Fedora's guidelines about that. You refused to include the
> license terms in the tarball,

That's a lie. I never refused to do that.

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
> and you refused to acknowledge the licensing in the source files (three files
> only at present).

That link mentions the license in it's own file, which was fixed upstream, as
recommended:
http://github.com/felipec/libmtag/blob/master/LICENSE

> However, in 0.3.2 upstream tarball, without mentioning it here, you added a
> one-line licensing header to the source files nevertheless. Some sort of
> compromise. That's not the best you could have done, but it's a beginning. 

It was clearly mentioned in comment #10. Also mentioned was the full addition
of LGPLv2 text in the "LICENSE" file.

> [compiler warnings]
> 
> > WTF are you talking about?
> 
> About strange/superfluous comments that only confuse matters. One can really
> get lost in all your excuses, such as the one about too much noise in compiler
> output. You can fill pages with ramblings about stuff you don't like to do, and
> at the end still all that will be important is to provide a src.rpm that
> actually fixes issues and will pass review.

If you are not able to receive constructive criticism just ignore it.

[...]

> > Now, if you do want me to comment on the lack of documentation
> > of the 'tools' package, I would rather remove it.
> 
> That would be an option.    

Since it seems to be the easiest, I'll do it.

-- 
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.