|Summary:||Review Request: pyabiword - Python bindings for libabiword|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Marc Maurer <uwog>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Robin Norwood <robin.norwood>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||fedora-package-review, kevin, mpg, notting|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-07-31 20:14:31 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Marc Maurer 2008-07-21 22:46:42 UTC
Spec URL: http://uwog.net/~uwog/pyabiword.spec SRPM URL: http://uwog.net/~uwog/pyabiword-0.6.1-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: Python bindings for libabiword
Comment 1 Robin Norwood 2008-07-22 16:30:43 UTC
$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/pyabiword-0.6.1-1.fc9.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/rnorwood/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/pyabiword-0.6.1-1.fc9.i386.rpm pyabiword.i386: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. o AUTHORS and COPYING are good candidates for marking as %doc. (COPYING must be included). Also, the contents of the examples/ directory could be included. o The source files don't include a license, which they should. The contents of the COPYING file (GPLv2) isn't enough to indicate the license. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ o The 'Vendor' tag should not be used according to Fedora packaging guidelines. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines Everything else looks ok to me. Once the above issues are fixed, I can approve.
Comment 2 Robin Norwood 2008-07-22 16:32:08 UTC
Oops, I shouldn't have set the review flag to '-' while awaiting these fixes.
Comment 3 Marc Maurer 2008-07-22 17:51:14 UTC
Spec URL: http://uwog.net/~uwog/pyabiword.spec SRPM URL: http://uwog.net/~uwog/pyabiword-0.6.1-2.fc9.src.rpm Changes: - Added documentation, including examples - Removed old Vendor tag Re licensing: I think the implied version is GPLv2+, as pyabiword links with libabiword. I'd prefer to update the spec when I get explicit approval from all contributors though.
Comment 4 Robin Norwood 2008-07-22 22:10:49 UTC
Sorry, I neglected to check for missing BuildRequires - These needed to be added for the package to build in koji: BuildRequires: gtk2-devel BuildRequires: libglade2-devel BuildRequires: libgnomeprintui22-devel BuildRequires: goffice04-devel BuildRequires: enchant-devel BuildRequires: fribidi-devel BuildRequires: wv-devel
Comment 5 Robin Norwood 2008-07-22 22:12:51 UTC
Assuming license issues and BR's are added, this gets a pass from me.
Comment 6 Marc Maurer 2008-07-22 22:29:17 UTC
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: pyabiword Short Description: Python bindings for libabiword Owners: uwog Branches: F-9 devel OLPC-3 InitialCC: uwog Cvsextras Commits: yes
Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2008-07-23 03:11:09 UTC
Can we please sort out the license before importing/building? We don't want to distribute something we are unsure of the license of...
Comment 8 Marc Maurer 2008-07-23 09:09:23 UTC
I am _sure_ it is GPL1+ now, because that is actually how the license works: if no explicit version is given, and that copyright file is included, then it is GPLv1+. That's just how it works. I asked some of the pyabiword devs, and they agree with that. Now, that does not mean that I can't make the next release v2+ (which I will do, but 'relicencing' always takes time), but _this_ release is GPLv1+.
Comment 9 Kevin Fenzi 2008-07-23 15:41:14 UTC
Ah indeed... sorry for the confusion on my part here, I was thinking there was no indication what the license was at all. :( cvs done.
Comment 10 Robin Norwood 2008-07-31 01:53:35 UTC
Marc, I think you can close this now. Thanks.
Comment 11 Marc Maurer 2008-07-31 20:14:31 UTC