[Bug 557948] Review Request: PyAIML - A Python AIML Interpreter

[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=557948

Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |182235(FE-Legal)

--- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola at iki.fi> 2010-01-24 05:21:12 EST ---
I'm going to sponsor Eric, here's a verbose review:


rpmlint output is clean.


MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
 - Be sure to check for older reviews on the review queue, first (or that if
the package already is in Fedora).

MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
 - Spec files are legible, no mixing of styles ($RPM_BUILD_ROOT vs
%{buildroot}), macro usage is sane.

MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
- Naming guidelines state that Python libraries must be named python-foo,
unless the name is pyfoo or Pyfoo.

MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the 
Licensing Guidelines. OK

MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
NEEDSWORK
- Nothing in the tarball actually specifies a license or defines the code to be
in the public domain.
- All I can find is
 License: UNKNOWN
in PKG-INFO.
- Upstream needs to add a license statement in the tarball before this package
can be approved.

MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. NEEDSWORK
- Source URL is malformed:
 $ spectool -g PyAIML.spec 
 (clip)
 2010-01-24 12:08:58 (117 KB/s) - “./index.html” saved [65180/65180]
- Source URL does not adhere to source URL guidelines
 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
- Correct Source URL is

http://downloads.sourceforge.net/pyaiml/PyAIML%20%28unstable%29/PyAIML-%{version}.tar.bz2

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
- As Eric stated in comment #1, be more verbose in %files since you might miss
if the egg is not built for some reason or another.

MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A

MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. ~OK
- You could add TODO.txt to %doc.

MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK

SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK
- No license file is included, please ask upstream to include one.

SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

****

The source URL and egg stuff are minor issues. The license issue is bigger:
there is no license specified, so we can't include this in Fedora - blocking
FE-LEGAL.

If upstream e.g. adds in README.TXT (or in the comment of the source code
files) a statement

"This code is in the public domain."

everything would be OK. However, the latest (unstable!) release has been in
2004, so I don't have high hopes of this happening...

-- 
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.