[Bug 506339] Review Request: XZ Utils - LZMA Utils with newer file format

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=506339





--- Comment #13 from Milos Jakubicek <xjakub at fi.muni.cz>  2009-06-30 17:11:14 EDT ---
Orcan, I'm really sorry for my late response, but I'm having busy days now (and
yes, I must have missed whatever you sent to f-d-l, sorry too).

I'm generally open to any modification to the current lzma package which will
help the symbiosis with xz, however, I really like the latest solution from
Jindrich (only -debuginfo are conflicting, which I don't find any bad) and if
nobody comes up with something we missed as far, I'm going to approve the
package in a day or two.

Other minor comments on packaging:

* rpmlint:
>rpmlint ../SRPMS/xz-4.999.8-0.5beta.fc11.src.rpm
xz.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary XZ
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

>rpmlint ../RPMS/x86_64/xz-*
xz-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/lzcat xz
xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/unlzma xz
xz-lzma-compat.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/lzma xz
xz.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary XZ

Those are all OK imho.

xz.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 4.999.8beta-0.5
['4.999.8-0.5beta.fc11', '4.999.8-0.5beta']

Make rpmlint happy here please, together with adding a dot as Orcan pointed
out.

* specfile is sane, owns all directories, proper macros
* builds fine in current F11 and rawhide:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1444933
* matches upstream sources, sha256sum:
059da5a9fe51c28b38f67e5b8063a451c516f37fbb268177fd1081b70dd97f53
* handles libraries well
* I have some worries regarding licensing because of the comment on upstream's
homepage:

"Oops! Accidentally a wrong COPYING file got included in 4.999.8beta.
4.999.8beta is still under GNU LGPL, but the first stable release will be in
the public domain like the incorrectly included draft of new COPYING in
4.999.8beta already hints."

Currently it is definitely *not* LGPLv2.1+ (in this case) but I'm also afraid
that authors claims about becoming Public domain are not right too.
Hence GPLv2+ seems to be ok to me (now).

-- 
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.