[Bug 962029] Review Request: libdbusmenu - A library that pulling out some code out of indicator-applet

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962029

--- Comment #5 from Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Hi Wolfgang, thanks for the review

SPEC: http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/libdbusmenu/2/libdbusmenu.spec
SRPM:
http://echevemaster.fedorapeople.org/libdbusmenu/2/libdbusmenu-12.10.2-2.fc18.src.rpm

Tested on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5431907 


(In reply to Wolfgang Ulbrich from comment #3)
> The package needs some work!
> 
> MUST
> 1.
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
>      "GPL (v3)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 92 files have
>      unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> GPL (v2 or later)
> -----------------
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/libdbusmenu-12.10.2/
> libdbusmenu-12.10.2/ltmain.sh
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/libdbusmenu-12.10.2/
> libdbusmenu-gtk3-12.10.2/ltmain.sh
This files (ltmain.sh) are part of Gnu Libtool, them have an exception,

i quote 

"As a special exception to the GNU General Public License,
if you distribute this file as part of a program or library that
is built using GNU Libtool, you may include this file under the
same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program."

therefore the application is not GPLv2+

> GPL (v3)
> --------
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/libdbusmenu-12.10.2/
> libdbusmenu-12.10.2/tests/glib-server-nomenu.c
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/libdbusmenu-12.10.2/
> libdbusmenu-12.10.2/tests/json-loader.c
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/libdbusmenu-12.10.2/
> libdbusmenu-12.10.2/tests/json-loader.h
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/libdbusmenu-12.10.2
> <snip>
> Unknown or generated
> --------------------
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/libdbusmenu-12.10.2/
> libdbusmenu-12.10.2/libdbusmenu-glib/client-marshal.c
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/libdbusmenu-12.10.2/
> libdbusmenu-12.10.2/libdbusmenu-glib/client-marshal.h
> /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/root/builddir/build/BUILD/libdbusmenu-12.10.2/
> libdbusmenu-12.10.2/libdbusmenu-glib/client-menuitem.c
> <snip>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> detailed output is attached.
> Your package use GPL (v2 or later) and GPL (v3) which is in one term GPLv2+.
> So change license field to
> License:	GPLv2+
> 
> 2.
> [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> 
> %dir %{_libdir}/girepository-1.0/
> Your package owns the whole folder in -main, -gtk2 and -gtk3 package. But it
> is already owned by gobject-introspection. Please remove those lines.
> 
Fixed in 2

> 3.
> Pls add Requires:	%{name} = %{version}-%{release} to -doc subpackage,
> otherwise it's possible to install the doc package without the main package.
> Don't use the the isa tag here, this will cause an install error.
> 
It is usually not desirable for documentation packages to depend on the main
packages, because users may want to install the docs before they decide whether
they want to install the package. 

> OTHERS:
> 4.
> [rave@mother srpm-unpacked]$ rpmlint -i libdbusmenu.spec
> libdbusmenu.spec:140: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
> There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile.
> Macros
> are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
> escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
> 
> libdbusmenu.spec:140: W: macro-in-comment %{_libexecdir}
> There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile.
> Macros
> are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
> escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
> 
> libdbusmenu.spec:151: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot}
> There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile.
> Macros
> are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
> escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
> 
> libdbusmenu.spec:151: W: macro-in-comment %{_libexecdir}
> There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile.
> Macros
> are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
> escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
> 
> libdbusmenu.spec:251: W: macro-in-comment %{_libexecdir}
> There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile.
> Macros
> are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and
> escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate.
> 
> libdbusmenu.spec:62: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 62, tab:
> line 1)
> The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
> cosmetic
> annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
> 
> 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Pls, fix mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. I prefer spaces, in result the spec
> file looks same in all editors.
> The other warning you can easyly fix, change i.e
> # chrpath --delete %{buildroot}%{_libexecdir}/dbusmenu-dumper
> to
> # chrpath --delete %%{buildroot}%%{_libexecdir}/dbusmenu-dumper
> or remove those comment out lines from spec file.
> 
Yes, i'm sorry for that; I didn't cleanup of my spec, before sending
Fixed in 4

> 5.
> %files docs 
> %doc %{name}-%{version}/README 
> %doc %{name}-%{version}/COPYING
> %doc %{name}-%{version}/COPYING.2.1
> %doc %{name}-%{version}/AUTHORS
> 
> I propose to simplify it before.
> %doc README COPYING COPYING.2.1 AUTHORS
> 
Remember that i did a split of the packages, and the licenses are in their
respectives directories (gtk and gtk3), therefore not accessible from the main
flow. I did a workaround in %prep for fix it
Fixed in 5

> This installs all the docs to /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version}/  .
> 
> The rest looks good.

-- 
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=nxdcubnWKW&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
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]