[Bug 427171] Review Request: sqliteman - Manager for sqlite - Sqlite Databases Made Easy
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Jan 3 08:43:32 UTC 2008
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: sqliteman - Manager for sqlite - Sqlite Databases Made Easy
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=427171
wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
------- Additional Comments From wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro 2008-01-03 03:43 EST -------
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: x86_64
[x] Rpmlint output:
sqliteman.src: E: unknown-key GPG#7666df64 (can be ignored)
sqliteman: no output
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:GPLv2+
[x] 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.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
SHA1SUM of package: 1c4ac936174f0f1dbddec479657e1da0dd133d01
sqliteman-1.0.1.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if
it is a GUI application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-] Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: devel/x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on:devel/x86_64
[?] Package functions as described.
[x] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
=== Issues ===
1. The spec file tries to pack some icons using
# fix icons
mv %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/icons %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/pixmaps
%files
_datadir}/pixmaps/%{name}.png
However the final package has:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 417 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/clear_table_contents.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5684 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/database.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3150 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/database_commit.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5990 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/database_rollback.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 572 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/delete_table_row.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 692 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/document-new.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1001 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/document-open.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1097 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/document-save-as.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1150 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/document-save.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1700 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/index.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 795 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/insert_table_row.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 568 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/key.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2533 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/runexplain.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 809 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/runsql.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27738 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/sqliteman.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2687 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/system.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 966 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/table.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2202 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/trigger.png
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 989 Jan 3 10:09
/usr/share/sqliteman/icons/view.png
In addition to that,
- it would be nice if timestamps of all those icon files would be preserved
- I think you should include sqliteman/icons/AUTHORS.
2. According to sqliteman/icons/AUTHORS, the icons are released under the LGPL
license. Which, if I understand correctly the guidelines from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#head-5dcaa7704b32aabaddc2e709f328f48eea6c91de
make me think that you have to
- either use as tag "GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+" or
- separate the icons in another standalone package and use different license
tags for the main and the -icons package
If I am wrong here, by all means please do correct me, I am fairly new in the
licensing field.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list