[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libtvdb-0.3.0-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wgUKOQopSja=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-12-06 22:28:17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9wxNdYGCiWa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libtvdb-0.3.0-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ilHng9IEdxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libtvdb-0.3.0-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: libtvdb Short Description: Library to retrieve TV series information from web Owners: dvratil Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libtvdb-0.3.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libtvdb-0.3.0-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- libtvdb-0.3.0-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libtvdb-0.3.0-3.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717
Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|volke...@gmx.at
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at ---
I'm not sure if anything could be gained by removing the unused dependencies on
shared libraries; See below!
tvdb_export.h claims LGPLv2+, which surprises me, in the face of the KDE
exception. I suggest to inform upstream, if you agree that this finding is
strange.
Besides that, this package is APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
Also builds on PPC and PPC64
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
devel
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: 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.
Upstream doesn't include it, packager informed upstream.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license^
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
LGPL, LGPL (v2 or later). 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in
/media/speicher1/makerpm/rpmbuild/SPECS/868717-libtvdb/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
See above!
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- The KDE e.V. as proxy clause is only something KDE offers as an option to its developers, not a requirements, it's fine by KDE licensing policies to just use v2+, and it's not a problem to have some stuff under v2+ and other stuff under v2 or v3 or whatever KDE e.V. approves because there is a nonempty intersection: in fact, the former is a superset of the latter, so the latter is also the intersection. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- I suspect that the tvdb_export.h file is based on one of the many other *_export.h files in KDE code, it's standard boilerplate code, so it makes sense for it to be licensed as liberally as possible. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #6 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/libtvdb.spec SRPM URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/libtvdb-0.3.0-3.fc18.src.rpm * Tue Nov 06 2012 Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com - 0.3.0-3 - Fixed license - Use KDE4 macros - Added Cmake to -devel requires I already contacted upstream when submitting the package for review to include a license file. The file will be included in next release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- Comment #4 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org --- It BRs kdelibs-devel (BTW, better use kdelibs4-devel) and kde-runtime-devel, so it's not a pure Qt library. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #5 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- After reading through the license header again, Kevin Kofler explained to me, that the license must be LGPLv2 or LGPLv3 and to add a comment saying that newer versions approved by KDE e.V. are allowed. If you want to place the cmake file in %datadir/cmake, you must require cmake for the devel sub-package. Please use KDE macros, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Packaging/BestPractices for reference (ignore the anachronisms). Please ask upstream to include a license file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 --- Comment #3 from Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/libtvdb.spec SRPM URL: http://pub.progdan.cz/specs/libtvdb-0.3.0-2.fc18.src.rpm * Tue Oct 23 2012 Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com - 0.3.0-2 - Fixed license - Marked ChangeLog as documentation - Removed CMake version and rm -rf $BUILD_ROOT Jan, this a pure Qt library, thus I don't use KDE4 macros here. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 Dan Vrátil dvra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||868947 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717
Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jgrul...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jan Grulich jgrul...@redhat.com ---
I think you should use KDE macros like %{cmake_kde4}, %{_kde4_libdir} etc. You
have also mistake in %changelog because entries must start with *.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 868717] Review Request: libtvdb - Library to retrieve TV series information from web
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=868717 Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at changed: What|Removed |Added CC||volke...@gmx.at --- Comment #2 from Volker Fröhlich volke...@gmx.at --- License seems to be LGPLv2+. rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT is no longer necessary. Drop the version requirement on cmake. Mark ChangeLog as documentation and ask upstream to include a license file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
