Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: nted - Musical score editor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444257 rhbugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(rhbugs@n- | |dimensional.de) | ------- Additional Comments From rhbugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-08 10:17 EST ------- Review Guidelines MUST items: OK: rpmlint produces no output OK: naming guidelines OK: %{name}.spec OK: Packaging Guidelines OK: Licensing Guidelines All the source files seem to be GPLv2+. Help->About dialog is GPLv2+. HTML manuals are GFDLv1.2+ COPYING is GPLv3. Ergo: Multiple licenses, but conforms to Fedora Licensing Guidelines. FAIL: License field match Does not cover HTML manuals. Use "License: GPLv2+ and GFDL"? FAIL: %doc COPYING "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 must be included in %doc." OK... as the shipped COPYING file is GPLv3+, which none of the files in the source package is licensed under, the source package does NOT include the text of the licenses in its own file. So we just can NOT %doc COPYING to technically satisfy the guidelines. Probably upstream has just shipped the default COPYING file autoreconf automatically adds to the source tree. We should to confirm this with upstream. OK: spec file in en_US OK: legible spec file OK: Sources match upstream OK: Compiles and builds on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=594520 N/A: Builds on all arches OK: All build deps listed OK: Uses %find_lang N/A: no shared libs N/A: not relocatable OK: owns all created dirs OK: no duplicate files in %files OK: proper file permissions OK: %clean with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK: consistent use of macros OK: packagecontains code OK: Those two HTML manuals are not necessarily "large docs" for a -doc pkg. Oh, and they are needed as online help at runtime. OK: %doc files must not affect runtime... The "Help->Documentation" menu item just shows an untitled dialog window +---------------------------------------------+ | Excuse! The documentation is not available | | due to an installation error | | [ OK ] | +---------------------------------------------+ Apart from this, nted works like a charm with or without docs. N/A: No header files N/A: no static libs N/A: no foo.pc file N/A: no libfoo.so.1.1 N/A: devel package N/A: no .la files OK: desktop file OK, but German translations to go with the German manual would be nice. OK: Does not own other apps' files or dirs OK: %install starts with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT OK: All filenames are valid ASCII and thus UTF-8 Review Guidelines SHOULD items: FAIL: No COPYING for GPLv2 OK: Are Summary(de) and %description(de) available? Yes, now. OK: Builds in local mock OK: Builds in Fedora koji on i386, x86_64, ppc, ppc64 OK: Appears to function as described. N/A: No scriptlets N/A: no subpackages N/A: no foo.pc N/A: no file deps Packaging Guidelines: OK: Uses standard compiler flags now. OK: All docs in /usr/share/doc/%{name}-%{version} now. SUMMARY: FAIL License: ignores HTML manual license FAIL We need to NOT "%doc COPYING". Just ignore the COPYING file. SHOULDFIX Docs: Are installed to a place where nted cannot find it. I have a patch. OPTIONAL Add lang(de) versions for Summary: and Description: OPTIONAL Assist upstream with cleaning up nted's configure.in OPTIONAL The code is still full of ugly compiler warnings. I'd say upstream should fix that, possibly with some help. See http://ndim.fedorapeople.org/packages/nted/0.22.3-2.4.fc9/ for my suggested fixes for the first four three of these. When you have a fix for the first three, I'll approve the package, unless you want to update to the nted-0.24.1 release before review completion. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review