[Bug 1022283] Review Request: gnulib - GNU Portability Library

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Informal review:

1. License is at least partially LGPL, so it should probably be "LGPL, GPL+
with exceptions" or something like that.

Licenses found:
     "GPL", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)",
     "Unknown or generated", "ISC GPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v3
     or later)", "BSD GPL (v2 or later)", "*No copyright* Public domain",
     "LGPL (v3 or later)", "ISC GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v3.1 or later)",
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3)".

2. Source0 — just use
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnulib.git;a=snapshot;h=%{githead};sf=tgz

3. Requires: remove sed, see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exceptions

4. Provides: why "bundled(gnulib)"? gnulib doesn't bundle gnulib.

5. There's no need to explictly specify permissions: install -dm755, etc,
should not be needed. Just say 'mkdir -p ...', and 'cp -p'. This will reduce
the noise in the spec file, making it easier to understand.

6. Why is gnulib-tool installed in %{_datadir} instead of %{_bindir} directly?
If it won't function correctly otherwise, then just add a comment in the spec
explaining this. Debian package doesn't do this, so it probably isn't
necessary.

7. /usr/share/gnulib/tests should be a separate package.
   The docs should be a separate package too.

gnulib seems to confuse the hell out of rpmlint, but in the noise there are
some good suggestions:

8. Texinfo files are installed using install-info in %post and %preun if
  package has .info files.
  Note: Texinfo .info file(s) in gnulib
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo

9. If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
  its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
  package is included in %doc.
  Note: Cannot find COPYING.LESSERv2 in rpm(s)

10. [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.

11. gnulib.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 20131022-git25fb29a-1
['20131022.git25fb29a-1.fc19', '20131022.git25fb29a-1']

12. Check http://packages.debian.org/sid/gnulib, they have man pages. It would
be nice to copy them.

-- 
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]