[Bug 526041] Review Request: luci - Web-based cluster management application

[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=526041





--- Comment #12 from Alan Pevec <apevec at redhat.com>  2009-09-29 10:45:50 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> - %description should end with a dot

Yes, that's usual, but I don't see it in guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
so I couldn't complain, it's not MUST

> - use %global instead of %define
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define

it's a draft suggestion, not MUST

> - license is completely unclear: Is this GPLv2 or GPLv2+? How about a COPYING
> file or license headers in the files?

not all, but files under luci/lib/ do have clear license headers:
# This program is free software; you can redistribute
# it and/or modify it under the terms of version 2 of the
# GNU General Public License as published by the
# Free Software Foundation.

Also luci/templates/footer.html is clear:
Distributed under the <a
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/GPL/2.0/">GNU GPL v2 license</a>.

So it's exactly GPLv2 as stated in spec, there isn't "or higher" clause to
allow GPLv2+
I have already suggested off-line to the packager=upstream maintainer to
include LICENSE file into tarball to make it completely clear.

> - any reason not to use %defattr(-,root,root,-) as we usually do? Not that it
> really matters...

yeah, setup.py creates correct permissions, but not blocking issue

> - timestamps don't match: Source0 in the srpm is 
> 28. Sep 15:27, while the one from the url is 15:33. Timestamps should match,
> see
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps

md5sum is important which is fine, guideline says "consider"

> /me knows he is pedantic, but we must not ship this until at least the license
> question is answered.  

I don't see why do you think that GPLv2 license is not clear?

-- 
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.