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=555162 --- Comment #1 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-17 23:23:14 EST --- One thing that jumps out at me is the "ocaml-caddie" package it creates (CAml cuDD InterfacE). It isn't named as a subpackage but is a completely separate package. This "ocaml-caddie" package certainly looks useful, but is this really the right source for it? Or is there a better upstream we should be trying to use instead? (I presume this is different from MLCUDDIDL, which is also an OCaml binding to cuDD.) This draft package includes "vampyre", which is NOT open source software. This needs to be removed. Its license says: "Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software for research purposes only is hereby granted..." Note that it's ONLY permitted for use for "research purposes"... you are NOT allowed to use it for anything useful. Thus, it's not okay for Fedora to include it. Vampyre needs to be stripped out of this package. I hope it can still be used without it; if vampyre is 100% required, then this package is done for. Instead of: sed -i -e "s|@libdir@|%{_libdir}|" blast/psrc/Makefile sed -i -e "s|@libdir@|%{_libdir}|" blast/psrc2/Makefile sed -i -e "s|@libdir@|%{_libdir}|" blast/spec/Makefile Why not (so we can see it's all the same change): sed -i -e "s|@libdir@|%{_libdir}|" blast/psrc/Makefile \ blast/psrc2/Makefile blast/spec/Makefile Should the smp_mflags limitation be a "FIXME"? It's more just a fact of life. Looking over the installed files, I see all sorts of issues: %{_bindir}/htmlize %{_bindir}/mfilter %{_bindir}/pblast %{_bindir}/smt_solver %{_bindir}/smtlibServer %{_bindir}/spec %{_bindir}/vampyre %{_includedir}/blast As I noted above, it installs "vampyre", which isn't allowed. Also, a number of these other names are probably too generic to be acceptable. I bet there are a dozen "htmlize" programs. Other bad names include mfilter, smt_solver, smtlibServer, spec. Also, one weird thing... the package is named "blast", but the program isn't named "blast"? That's okay, but odd. It did build on a 32-bit x86. I can't easily use koji, since this depends on a package (csisat) not in the Fedora repository. I ran rpmlint using rpmlint blast.spec ../RPMS/i586/blast-2.5-1.fc11.i586.rpm ../RPMS/i586/ocaml-caddie-* ../SRPMS/blast-2.5-1.fc11.src.rpm and got 2 warning messages: blast.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/include/blast/assert.h ocaml-caddie-devel.i586: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The first one is probably okay, and we can ignore the warning. The second one doesn't look good. ocaml-caddie should have SOME docs, yes? Thoughts? -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review