Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 173683
Summary: | Review Request: bidiv (BiDi Viewer) - display logical-Hebrew text | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Dan Kenigsberg <danken> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | John Mahowald <jpmahowald> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-extras-list, mpeters, nyh |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
URL: | http://ivrix.org.il/redhat/bidiv-1.4-2.i386.rpm | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-01-30 08:51:47 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Dan Kenigsberg
2005-11-18 21:46:17 UTC
Needs work: * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * rpmlint of bidiv: The group is actually Applications/Text. And you can drop the Provides. * The package should contain the text of the license (wiki: PackageReviewGuidelines) * You can drop %doc from the man page, rpm knows about man Good: * Source bidiv-1.4.tgz is the same as upstream * Builds fine in mock I added smp_flags, corrected the group (even before your review...), dropped the Provides and %doc for the man page, and added the text of the GPL. However, there must be a smarter way to add that COPYING file, when it is missing from the upstream package - I added a new source with a tar.gz of the GPL. I lack the rpm expertease to do it properly, and I would appreciate a hint. Please see http://ivrix.org.il/redhat/bidiv-1.4-3.src.rpm and the updated spec. (In reply to comment #0) > bidiv is a tiny but useful unitility for viewing logical-Hebrew text from within an 8-bit terminal. 8-bit terminals? Do we still have those in Fedora? (In reply to comment #2) > However, there must be a smarter way to add that COPYING file, when it is > missing from the upstream package I believe you should contact the upstream author and ask him to mention the version of GPL he is releasing the package in. Nowhere in the package (including the C source) the version of the GPL is mentioned. The "no warranty" clause is not there either. This makes the package's license ambiguous. Please direct the author to the final section in the GPL, How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#SEC4 Also, I would recommend: * Formatting the SPEC file according to the default Fedora format (as created by fedora-rpmnewspec); * Discarding the %{?dist} tag, as it is not used in the SPEC file for anything. I think the dist tag is only for cases when there are different Requires or BuildRequires for different disto releases (See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag). (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > However, there must be a smarter way to add that COPYING file, when it is > > missing from the upstream package > > I believe you should contact the upstream author and ask him to mention the > version of GPL he is releasing the package in. Nowhere in the package (including > the C source) the version of the GPL is mentioned. The "no warranty" clause is > not there either. This makes the package's license ambiguous. Please direct the > author to the final section in the GPL, How to Apply These Terms to Your New > Programs: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#SEC4 If upstream does not include the license text, you should ask upstream to do so for future releases but there is no need to add the license text obtained from elsewhere to your RPM package. The requirement to include the license text applies only if upstream provide it. > Also, I would recommend: > * Formatting the SPEC file according to the default Fedora format (as created by > fedora-rpmnewspec); > * Discarding the %{?dist} tag, as it is not used in the SPEC file for anything. > I think the dist tag is only for cases when there are different Requires or > BuildRequires for different disto releases (See > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag). Different "Requires" would include those auto-generated by RPM. Since this is a binary package and will be linking against system libraries, it's likely that different distro releases will have different dependencies, so I'd keep the dist tag. (In reply to comment #4) > If upstream does not include the license text, you should ask upstream to do so > for future releases but there is no need to add the license text obtained from > elsewhere to your RPM package. The requirement to include the license text > applies only if upstream provide it. That's right, but my point is that the upstream license is unclear (version is not known), and we better know the license of what we redistribute. So we better contact the upstream author about that. Thanks. I just released a new version of bidiv, which fixes a bug and the documentation, and clarifies the license (which is, and always was, the GPL - but now I also added the COPYING file and mentioned "version 2"). You can take the new version from: http://ftp.ivrix.org.il/pub/ivrix/src/cmdline/bidiv-1.5.tgz And an updated http://ivrix.org.il/redhat/bidiv-1.5-1.src.rpm is also available. Good: - rpmlint clean - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (GPL) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on FC4 i386 - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Minor: don't need to specify Bidiv - in the Summary. Users already know what package they are querying. APPROVED |