[Bug 732215] Review Request: mined - Powerful Text Editor
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Aug 28 12:21:51 UTC 2011
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=732215
Sébastien Willmann <sebastien.willmann at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sebastien.willmann at gmail.co
| |m
--- Comment #2 from Sébastien Willmann <sebastien.willmann at gmail.com> 2011-08-28 08:21:50 EDT ---
This is an informal review
[!] rpmlint must be run on every package.
rpmlint mined-2011.17-1.fc15.src.rpm mined-2011.17-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
mined-debuginfo-2011.17-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
mined.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
mined.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/doc/mined-2011.17/LICENSE.GNU usrshare/package_doc/LICENSE.GNU
mined.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/doc/mined-2011.17/CHANGES usrshare/package_doc/CHANGES
mined.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/doc/mined-2011.17/VERSION usrshare/package_doc/VERSION
mined.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/uterm.1.gz 96:
warning: macro `..' not defined
mined.x86_64: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man1/mined.1.gz 351:
warning: macro `VL' not defined
mined.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/man/man1/mined.1.gz
mined.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/doc/mined-2011.17/README usrshare/package_doc/README
mined-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.
[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[!] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Fix rpmlint, license and directory ownership issues.
[!] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines.
The license is GPLv2+, but there is the following sentence in the README
file:
"Also redistributions should not take license/royalty fees for the use
of mined or any derived version (it is not very clear to the software
community what exactly the GNU license means in this respect)."
I think this is not acceptable for Fedora (and for the GPL).
[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[X] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for
the package must be included in %doc.
[X] The spec file must be written in American English.
[X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Upstream: b38eb3c0bf77b76c24ae360f997fca1a
Package: b38eb3c0bf77b76c24ae360f997fca1a
[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Build successful on Fedora 15 x86_64
[NA] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[X] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[NA] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
[!] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
% LANG=C rpm -qf /usr/share/mined
file /usr/share/mined is not owned by any package
[X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
[X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[X] Each package must consistently use macros.
[X] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[X] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
[NA] Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
[NA] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}.
[X] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
[X] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
There are some issues with this package:
- I don't think that the license is acceptable for fedora. Ask upsteam to
change it.
- rpmlint errors and warnings should be fixed, unless you have good reasons not
to do it.
- The package must own %{_datadir}/mined (everything inside this directory will
be owned automatically).
I think you could also put ${_bindir}/* in the file section instead of listing
manually every file in this directory.
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list