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(a)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*.
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.