Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=923163 --- Comment #8 from Mathieu Bridon <bochecha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > Here's the full review, very few is missing for the package to be approved. > > :) > > Thanks Mathieu, I am a bit unclear on some points. > > > => The License tag should be: > > License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT and CC-BY and CC-BY-SA > > I always assumed the License: tag was about the overall license of the > shipped binary, and not the individual licenses of source files inside the > package. > For example, GPLv2+, LGLPv2+ and MIT can be used together in a > GPLv2-licensed binary (not sure the same applies to CC licenses though). > I changed the spec file to your suggestion anyway. Yes, linking for example GPL and MIT together might make the result GPL, but I can't say that for sure to be honest. Detailing it all explicitly doesn't hurt, leads to the same effective result, and can actually help finding conflicts of licenses in some cases, so that's why I prefer always being explicit on licenses. (Note that in the value I suggested, I only counted the source files which actually end up being built in the binary RPM, the license of things like the autotools boilerplate normally doesn't count) > > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > => Package bundles libgd, which is fine given the nature of libgd. > > However: > > - You should make that explicit, by adding: > > Provides: bundled(libgd) > > - libgd.so should not get installed, but be linked statically, as > > explained by Matthias: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919265#c6 > > I did the former; the latter is not possible for this package, since there's > no C binary to statically link the library to. Oh, I thought the typelib could have been statically linked (granted, I don't really know how the typelib works) In this case, you should at least filter the provides on libgd.so out. > > => You **could** eventually make that a noarch subpackage. > > > > However, once you stop installing the bundled libgd, the only > > arch-specific thing which remains in the package is the Gd-1.0.typelib > > file, so having a noarch subpackage might be a bit overkill. > > > > Longterm, I believe libgd will eventually get merged into Gtk, right? > > So at that point, the typelib won't get installed by gnome-weather any > > more, and the whole package could be made noarch. > > > > With all the above in mind, I won't block the review on this, just try > > to remember to make the whole package noarch when that becomes > > possible. > > Yeah; right now I don't think it's useful to split any noarch part out of > the package. Works for me. > Updated spec/SRPM for review at the same location. > Spec URL: http://people.gnome.org/~cosimoc/gnome-weather/gnome-weather.spec > SRPM URL: > http://people.gnome.org/~cosimoc/gnome-weather/gnome-weather-3.7.92-1.fc19. > src.rpm --- gnome-weather.spec.bak 2013-03-22 09:45:04.516932207 +0800 +++ gnome-weather.spec 2013-03-26 04:25:49.000000000 +0800 @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: A weather application for GNOME -License: GPLv2+ +License: GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and MIT and CC-BY and CC-BY-SA => Fixes my concern with the license tag. URL: https://live.gnome.org/Design/Apps/Weather Source0: http://ftp.acc.umu.se/pub/GNOME/sources/%{name}/3.7/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz @@ -15,6 +15,11 @@ BuildRequires: gtk3-devel BuildRequires: gobject-introspection >= 1.35.9 +# libgd is not meant to be installed as a system-wide shared library. +# It is just a way for GNOME applications to share widgets and other common +# code on an ad-hoc basis. +Provides: bundled(libgd) => Good. %description gnome-weather is a weather application for GNOME @@ -31,11 +36,7 @@ desktop-file-validate $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/applications/%{name}.desktop %find_lang %{name} -%post -/sbin/ldconfig - => Good. %postun -/sbin/ldconfig => Good. if [ $1 -eq 0 ] ; then /usr/bin/glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : fi @@ -44,7 +45,7 @@ /usr/bin/glib-compile-schemas %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas &> /dev/null || : %files -f %{name}.lang -%doc NEWS +%doc NEWS data/CREDITS => Fixes my concern with the CC licenses %{_datadir}/%{name} %{_bindir}/%{name} %{_datadir}/glib-2.0/schemas/* ----- So, right now the only remaining problem that I can see is the provides on libgd.so: libgd.so()(64bit) As it is, if another package requires libgd.so (either because it was erroneously dynamically linked, or because a requires had not been properly filtered out), then gnome-weather would satisfy as a dependency of that package as far as RPM is concerned, which would be wrong. Adding the following two lines before %description does the trick: %filter_provides_in %{_libdir}/%{name}/.*\.so$ %filter_setup -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NggR5qOLXd&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review