Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: dumb - IT, XM, S3M and MOD player library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185576 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-03-15 19:53 EST ------- This package has an incredibly poor license. What's the point of stating a bunch of meaningless conditions and then specifying that you can ignore them if it makes the package GPL incompatible? In any case, it's clear that the package is explicitly GPL-compatible, and it's pointless to try to come up with any other statement of the license. So "GPL-Compatible" seems reasonable, although "Dumb license" is tempting. One question: Why are readme.txt and release.txt part of the -devel package? They seem to contain useful end-user info, and so it seems to me as if they should be in the main package. There are a couple of other files under docs that could probably be considered to be non-developer documentation as well (modplug.txt, faq.txt). rpmlint only complains about the license: W: dumb invalid-license GPL-Compatible W: dumb-devel invalid-license GPL-Compatible MUSTs: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. * license field matches the license, as it is. * license is open source-compatible and included as %doc. * source files match upstream: 3e345d643060880bab7c574774c4b35b dumb-0.9.3-autotools.tar.gz 3e345d643060880bab7c574774c4b35b dumb-0.9.3-autotools.tar.gz-srpm f48da5b990aa8aa822d3b6a951baf5c2 dumb-0.9.3.tar.gz f48da5b990aa8aa822d3b6a951baf5c2 dumb-0.9.3.tar.gz-srpm * package builds in mock on x86_64 and i386. * BuildRequires are proper. * shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called as necessary. * package is not relocatable. * package does not create any directories. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in a -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * unversioned shared library links are in the -devel package. * -devel package has a versioned dependency on the base package. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. * Package owns no files that are owned by other packages. Just the issue of the readme.txt and release.txt to discuss. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
