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=560240 --- Comment #2 from Chen Lei <supercyper@xxxxxxx> 2010-01-31 23:34:27 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) > * The svn checkout appears to be pre-release snapshot of 0.3.0. Hence the > following applies: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages > It seems to be formal release, the upstream released binrary for libxls 0.3.0, but there's no source for libxls 0.3.0. See http://sourceforge.net/projects/libxls/ > * Can you take a look at the many format string warnings in the build.log? They > are reason to be concerned. > > * The build.log also prints warnings about automake/aclocal, which should be > fixed by regenerating the autotools framework prior to packaging the tarball. > > * I highly recommend to move the %check section _after_ the %install section > and to point LD_LIBRARY_PATH at the files in %buildroot. That has helped with > discovering packaging mistakes at least a couple of times before. I'll try to fix those problem. > > > License: LGPLv2+ > > * src/getopt.c is not LGPLv2+ but original BSD with advertising clause, which > is not GPL compatible according to the licensing matrix. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD#Original_BSD_License_.28BSD_with_advertising.29 > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses > > * All other files in src/ are LGPLv3+. Should the license for libxls be changed to LGPLv3 and BSD with advertising? -- 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