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=654862 Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-30 05:40:29 EST --- * License: The GPL file included is GPLv2 text. But the section "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs" explain how to apply the license to the code. But the code actually miss such license header. The GPLv2 license explain that's 'safer' to apply license text in 'each' files from the saphire code. That will also clarify either it is GPLv2 (only) or GPLv2+ I've searched in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines and nothing state there is a need to have the license in header so far. But at least GPL isn't accurate in the license field. (it is either GPLv2 or GPLv2+). * rpmlint on installed files, OK # rpmlint saphire saphire.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libsaphire.so.1.0 /lib64/libncurses.so.5 saphire.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary saphire saphire.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sash 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # rpmlint saphire-devel saphire-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. * Keeping timestamp on header installation: NOT OK ls -al /usr/include/saphire* -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 4114 30 nov. 11:11 /usr/include/saphire_curses.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1770 30 nov. 11:11 /usr/include/saphire_debug.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 1042 30 nov. 11:11 /usr/include/saphire_extra.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 12764 30 nov. 11:11 /usr/include/saphire.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2036 30 nov. 11:11 /usr/include/saphire_hash.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 3203 30 nov. 11:11 /usr/include/saphire_kanji.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2603 30 nov. 11:11 /usr/include/saphire_list.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2679 30 nov. 11:11 /usr/include/saphire_string.h -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 2627 30 nov. 11:11 /usr/include/saphire_vector.h Theses headers will then conflict on multilib package. Fixed version: # Keep timestamp sed -i.stamp \ -e 's| -m 755| -p -m 755|g' \ -e 's| -m 644| -p -m 644|g' \ Makefile.in * Debug info are generated and extracted correctly: OK * RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used. OK * Usability test: OK I can't see a reason to hold the package. But It would be fine to have an answear from upstream about the License. Otherwise assume it is GPLv2 only. saphire is APPROVED. -- 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