[Bug 552113] Review Request: libwiiuse - library to use wiiremotes via bluetooth

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=552113

Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-30 21:24:58 EST ---
Could you elaborate on why you chose to rename from wiiuse to libwiiuse?  The
upstream project name seems to be wiiuse.

The summary of the main package could use some work.  It doesn't say anything
that the name of the package doesn't.  I'd use something like "A library that
connects with several Nintendo Wii remotes".

The license seems to be GPLv3+, not GPLv3.  At least the source says so rather
explicitly.  Do you have some other source of information that indicates that
the license is GPLv3 only?  (Also, I asked the legal list about the
LGPLv3/noncommercial thing and it appears that the best thing to do is ignore
it completely.) 

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
  afc86b05ab201842c7f258e3d854171ede80167bd257272ae59d0cfbd342fb0d
   wiiuse_v0.12_src.tar.gz
? package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X summary could use some work.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
X license field does not match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libwiiuse-0.12-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
   libwiiuse.so.0()(64bit)  
   libwiiuse = 0.12-1.fc15
   libwiiuse(x86-64) = 0.12-1.fc15
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig  
   libbluetooth.so.3()(64bit)  

  libwiiuse-devel-0.12-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
   libwiiuse-devel = 0.12-1.fc15
   libwiiuse-devel(x86-64) = 0.12-1.fc15
  =
   libwiiuse = 0.12-1.fc15
   libwiiuse.so.0()(64bit)  

  libwiiuse-examples-0.12-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
   libwiiuse-examples = 0.12-1.fc15
   libwiiuse-examples(x86-64) = 0.12-1.fc15
  =
   libGL.so.1()(64bit)  
   libGLU.so.1()(64bit)  
   libSDL-1.2.so.0()(64bit)  
   libbluetooth.so.3()(64bit)  
   libglut.so.3()(64bit)  
   libwiiuse = 0.12-1.fc15
   libwiiuse.so.0()(64bit)  

* no bundled libraries.
* shared libraries installed; ldconfig called properly.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets are OK (ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]