Re: Unofficial review MUST items

[gil <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx>]

Il 12/12/2016 15:35, Guido Aulisi ha scritto:

Hi,
I'm trying to complete an unofficial review
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401450) to check my
review skills :-), and I have some problems filling some MUST items
which fedora-review leaves blanks.
The items are:

1) Sources contain only permissible code or content: this is very hard
to check if source code is big enough; I'm quite sure that it doesn't
contain content, but checking all source code would be a very long
work. Can we rely on the license (GPLv3+)?

Se i sorgenti sono listati in licensecheck.txt come "Unknown or generated"
devi lo stesso controllarli tutti, perchè alcuni potrebbero riportare licenze non vailde per Fedora
ad esempio il pacchetto nom-tam-fits tutti i suoi file sono catalogati come "Unknown or generated"
pero contengono, tutti, questa intestazione:
     /*
 * #%L
 * nom.tam FITS library
 * %%
 * Copyright (C) 2004 - 2015 nom-tam-fits
 * %%
 * This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
 *
 * Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
 * distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
 * binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any
 * means.
 *
 * In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
 * of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
 * software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
 * of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
 * successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
 * relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
 * software under copyright law.
 *
 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
 * EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
 * MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
 * IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
 * OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
 * ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
 * OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
 * #L%
 */
che definisce la licenza (BSD)

2) Package does not generate any conflict: do I have to install all
Fedora packeges to check this or is there a better way to check that
(maybe a query to the package database)?

non credo si dovrebbe tenere presente  che i pacchetti dovrebbero contenere librerie o file eseguibili
non disonibili in altri

3) Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag: I think I need
a scratch koji build to check this, but it was not done. Can I do a
scratch build myself?

koji build rawhide --scratch /[PERCORSO SRPM]/[NOME][VERSIONE][RELEASE].src.rpm
oppure
koji build --scratch --arch-override x86_64 rawhide /[PERCORSO SRPM]/[NOME][VERSIONE][RELEASE].src.rpm

4) Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines: this seems to me like
a catch all question, it summarizes all other items, doesn't it?

Questo dipende dal tipo di paccetto (C/C++, Python, fonts, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby)

Ciao
Guido
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ciao
.g

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx