[Bug 669010] New: Review Request: libfap - C port of Ham::APRS::FAP APRS Parser

[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.

Summary: Review Request: libfap - C port of Ham::APRS::FAP APRS Parser

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=669010

           Summary: Review Request: libfap - C port of Ham::APRS::FAP APRS
                    Parser
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: low
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org
        ReportedBy: andrew.elwell at gmail.com
         QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org
                CC: notting at redhat.com, fedora-package-review at redhat.com
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora


Spec URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/libfap.spec
SRPM URL: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6594808/Fedora/libfap-0.9-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description: libfap is a C port of the Ham::APRS::FAP Finnish APRS Parser
(Fabulous APRS Parser) Perl module. As the original Perl code, libfap parses
normal, mic-e and compressed location packets, NMEA location packets, objects,
items, messages, telemetry and most weather packets. For more description, see
the Perl module.

Notes
1) It's a dual licenced library (Artistic or GPL) -- Although Artistic 1.0 is
NOT allowed as a fedora licence on its own, but IS allowed as a Perl licence
(from the table https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#Good_Licenses )

I have asked upstream (Tapio Aaltonen) to clarify this but no email response
yet (only sent today) as they state in COPYING "Libfap may be copied only under
the terms of either the Artistic License or the GNU General Public License.
These licenses can be found in the licences directory of this package." without
explicitly mentioning modification.


2) not all the text files included with the source are packaged (NEWS provides
no information and INSTALL is the generic one -- as per
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Documentation)


3) there is a test application 'smoketest' that is optional (make check) --
again should this be packaged with the relevant parts of the Makefile? It
doesn't look like its a useful standalone application.


4) rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint libfap*
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


I am still looking for a sponsor.

-- 
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.