Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457924 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-09 22:25:49 EDT --- This package needs a license review, I think. You have License: LGPLv2, but the source files all seem to be either LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ (grep for "GNU Lesser" and "GNU General" and note the "any later version" language present in all files). However, I don't know if any of the GPLv2+ stuff ends up on the final binary; it seems to be test-related. You will need to check that; if that's the case, then the final product is GPLv2+; otherwise I think it would be LGPLv2+ unless some other license is involved. rpmlint says: libmicrohttpd.x86_64: W: no-documentation Actually the COPYING file should be in the main package, and this will go away when that's fixed. (Eliminating this complaint isn't the reason for moving the COPYING file; we just want the license information in the package that people will be installing.) libmicrohttpd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation Not a problem. libmicrohttpd-doc.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/libmicrohttpd-doc-0.3.1/html/d8/d26/microhttpd_8h__incl.map Doxygen tends to do this for whatever reason. I don't think it's a big problem. * source files match upstream: c38e3d74c1a97e2bd0442147003d6423acbe791979cb52d5e78b5fcfe95168ff libmicrohttpd-0.3.1.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. X license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. X license text not included in main package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: libmicrohttpd-0.3.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm libmicrohttpd.so.4()(64bit) libmicrohttpd = 0.3.1-1.fc10 libmicrohttpd(x86-64) = 0.3.1-1.fc10 = /sbin/ldconfig info libmicrohttpd.so.4()(64bit) libmicrohttpd-devel-0.3.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm libmicrohttpd-devel = 0.3.1-1.fc10 libmicrohttpd-devel(x86-64) = 0.3.1-1.fc10 = libmicrohttpd = 0.3.1-1.fc10 libmicrohttpd.so.4()(64bit) libmicrohttpd-doc-0.3.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm libmicrohttpd-doc = 0.3.1-1.fc10 libmicrohttpd-doc(x86-64) = 0.3.1-1.fc10 = /bin/sh libmicrohttpd = 0.3.1-1.fc10 * %check is present and all tests pass: All 3 tests passed All 15 tests passed * shared libraries installed: ldconfig called properly. unversioned .so link is in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (install-info, ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is in a separate package. * headers are in the -devel package. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review