[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 #13 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org>  2009-09-29 12:25:07 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> (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

That's why I used the word *should*.

> > - use %global instead of %define
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define
> 
> it's a draft suggestion, not MUST

I didn't say it's a MUST ether.

> > - 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.

OK, I didn't see or grep those. My fault.

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

Sorry, but this does not mean a lot, because you still cannot distinguish
between GPLv2 and GPLv2+ with it. There is no "or any later version" that could
be linked.

> So it's exactly GPLv2 as stated in spec, there isn't "or higher" clause to
> allow GPLv2+

Agreed.

> I have already suggested off-line to the packager=upstream maintainer to
> include LICENSE file into tarball to make it completely clear.

As it is a SHOULD thing in the review guidelines it should be mentioned here.
off-line communication makes a review non-transparent.

> > - 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"

Again I said *should*, especially as he have a very uncommon situation here
(Source in srpm newer than from URL)

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

Because I didn't see those headers. Again, my bad.

-- 
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.