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=523553 Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(michael.silvanus@ | |gmail.com) | --- Comment #15 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-06 23:18:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #10) > > > ? license complies with guidelines > I don't see how mutrace should ever be used for Fedora infrastructure. Fair enough. > > FIX source matches upstream > > $ sha1sum mutrace-0.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/mutrace-0.1.tar.gz > > dcb16f9a80262cb608f641ee5c960b15def6ad83 mutrace-0.1.tar.gz > > 6017fc40158663eeffec4c70ba69cf04cde11ef2 ../SOURCES/mutrace-0.1.tar.gz > > Fixed now. > Verified $ sha1sum mutrace-0.1.tar.gz ../SOURCES/mutrace-0.1.tar.gz ea972f8666933fb297b9791187858ccca3fecff7 mutrace-0.1.tar.gz ea972f8666933fb297b9791187858ccca3fecff7 ../SOURCES/mutrace-0.1.tar.gz > > FIX build dependencies complete > > missing binutils-devel > > Fixed. OK > > > FIX no dupes in %files > > no dupes, but some unpackaged files: %{_libdir}/libmatrace.so and > > libmutrace-backtrace-symbols.so > > Fixed. OK > > > SHOULD > > FIX if license text missing, ask upstream to include it > > corresponding GPL license text not included > > It is included. Em, I don't see it. I see these license files: GPL ==> GPL v2 (needed) LGPL ==> LGPL v3 (needed) per the LGPL file, """ This version of the GNU Lesser General Public License incorporates the terms and conditions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License, supplemented by the additional permissions listed below. """ Per the FSF's instructions: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-howto.html """ You should also include a copy of the license itself somewhere in the distribution of your program. All programs, whether they are released under the GPL or LGPL, should include the text version of the GPL. In GNU programs the license is usually in a file called COPYING. """ since you use LGPLv3+, you must bundle the GPLv3 license text as well. > > FIX package build in mock on all architectures > > not using mock yet, BR problem > > Uh? I didn't build the package in mock, since the build dependencies were not complete (and there were unpackaged files), and I figured I'd have to test the fixed package anyway. There are some failures on PPC, both with F-11 and F-12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1732211 In mutrace.c, you define DEBUG_TRAP on non-x86 architectures as raise(SIGTRAP), but you are not #ifdef-including signal.h > > OK package functioned as described > > FIX require package not files > > require util-linux-ng rather than /usr/bin/getopt ? > > /usr/bin/getopt is pretty generic and changed packages a couple of times in the > past, which is is why I decided to stick with a path dependency instead of > package dependency. Fair enough I'm attaching the patch, which allows building on non-x86 architectures; incorporate that and add the missing GPLv3 text and this package should be ready to go. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review