[Bug 651656] Review Request: ghc-ltk - A UI toolkit for Leksah

[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=651656

Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #15 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> 2011-05-02 10:53:02 EDT ---
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3044757


Here is the review:

 +:ok, !: needs attention, NA: not applicable

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint output

ghc-ltk.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Leksah -> Leks ah, Leks-ah,
Levkas
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ghc-ltk.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Leksah -> Leks ah, Leks-ah,
Levkas
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ghc-ltk-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Leksah -> Leks ah,
Leks-ah, Levkas
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ghc-ltk-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-ltk-devel
ghc-ltk-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Leksah -> Leks ah,
Leks-ah, Levkas
ghc-ltk-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-ltk-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/ltk-0.10.0/libHSltk-0.10.0_p.a
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

[+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name}
[+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines
[!] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license.

License is ok but it is unfortunately
unclear from the source headers what exact
version of GPL is intended: eg GPLv2 vs GPLv2+ say.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F

Hence going by point (4) there since only the LICENSE (COPYING) file
mentions GPLv2+, but the version is not specified explicitly
in the source tree, we have to assume GPL+ (ie any version of GPL) for now.

Can you please contact upstream to clarify the intended GPL version
and ask them to state it in the source.  The best way to do this
would actually be to add the usual "GPL version or later" paragraph as
a header to each source file.  I am afraid the same problem also seems
to exist for leksah and leksah-server afaics, so best to mention them
all altogether probably.

In the meantime the package can be license tagged GPL+ to avoid further delay
until upstream has clarified and hopes updates in a coming release.

[+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible.
[+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release
a520300be890862ae0d816adbd67d198  ltk-0.10.0.tar.gz
[+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch
[+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations
[NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must
include a %defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] MUST: 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.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[NA] MUST: 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.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.

Package is APPROVED.

-- 
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.