[Bug 1201925] Review Request: gnome-shell-extension-touchpad-indicator - Minimalistic Touchpad management extension for the Gnome Shell

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1201925

Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx



--- Comment #1 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Hi,

This is an informal review and it is also my first, so in all likelihood, I
have missed something.

Your spec file looks good. You don't have any of the obsolete commands and
sections.

When I ran it through rpmlint there where only a few warnings concerning the
spelling of certain words - most of them highly debatable in my opinion:

gnome-shell-extension-touchpad-indicator.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
Minimalistic -> Minimalist, Minimalism, Animistic
gnome-shell-extension-touchpad-indicator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US minimalistic -> minimalist, minimalism, animistic
gnome-shell-extension-touchpad-indicator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US trackpoint -> track point, track-point, checkpoint
gnome-shell-extension-touchpad-indicator.src: W: spelling-error %description -l
en_US startup -> start up, start-up, upstart

Personally, I wouldn't bother.


All of the automatic checks ran by fedora-review were OK. Same for the things I
had to check by myself, except for one thing: the spec file states that the
license is GPLv2+, but licensecheck reported that convenience.js is under the
BSD license with the "no advertising" clause. 

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD?rd=Licensing/BSD#3ClauseBSD

According to

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios

you should change the license line in your spec file to:

License:        GPLv2+ and BSD

and it should be preceded by an explanatory comment, like this one:

# The entire source code is GPLv2+ except convenience.js, which is BSD

See the link above for more, it also states that the %files section should
contain a breakdown of the files grouped by license.

In the few tens of spec files I have read, not many people make use of
"c=%{commit}" or "d=%{_datadir}/gnome-shell/extensions/%{uuid}", they just
repeat things over and over again. Perhaps my sample is not statistically
significant and I really have no idea if seasoned packagers would consider it
elegant or lazy (I like it though).

Well done and I hope a proven packager will review your package as soon as
possible.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
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]