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=749885 --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2011-10-28 15:21:15 EDT --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3469611 rpmlint *.rpm x86_64/*.rpm iris.src:44: W: configure-without-libdir-spec iris.src: W: invalid-url Source0: iris-1.0.0-20110904.tar.gz iris-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/iris-1.0.0/src/libidn/nfkc.c iris-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/iris-1.0.0/src/xmpp/.moc iris-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/iris-1.0.0/src/xmpp/.moc iris-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. -- 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.

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=749885 Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |iris --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2011-10-30 14:37:11 EDT --- 1. jdns, apparently only a single header file qjdns.h is used here. 2. libidn. Mostly harmless, seems only a single header file is really needed "./src/xmpp/jid/jid.cpp" which has #include <libidn/stringprep.h> which is hardly worthy of calling bundling, but easy enough to patch to use the system copy from libidn-devel instead. 3. I don't see anything out of the ordinary? 4-5. will poke upstream for clarification I suppose, but not sure if we can assume something is bundled or not without evidence either way 6. looks like some sort of xmpp plugin to me, not really a copy of zlib -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; 2011-11-06 03:55:31 EST --- Rex, even one fole should be addressed unfortunately. They can't be "very small issue" (look for exceptions for example, even one-file md5 implementation listed in 3 forms explicit). If you can exclude such files - please do that. If it is not possible - such libraries should be packaged separately and this linked to they. -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2011-11-07 15:59:21 EST --- Any hints to what upstream to use for unbundling qjdns ? -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #9 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2011-11-07 16:10:45 EST --- %changelog * Mon Nov 07 2011 Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 1.0.0-0.4.20110904 - unbundle libidn Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/iris/iris.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/iris/iris-1.0.0-0.4.20110904.fc16.sr... -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #11 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; 2011-11-07 16:50:49 EST --- (but I'd only go through the trouble of making a subpackage, which also implies a separate installed library, if really needed) -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #13 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; 2011-11-08 11:11:47 EST --- Ouch, 2 dependencies of the same program bundling the same library is a symbol conflict waiting to happen! This ought to be brought to upstream's attention. -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #15 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2011-11-10 16:10:30 EST --- f16 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3506224 -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #16 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; 2011-11-13 09:16:11 EST --- Legend: + - Ok. - - Error. +/- - It item acceptable, but I strongly recommend enhancement. = - N/A. == MUST Items == [+/-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint *.spec *.rpm iris.spec:75: W: configure-without-libdir-spec iris.spec:25: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 25) Both trivial to fix, please do that. iris.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: iris-1.0.0-20110904.tar.gz iris.src:75: W: configure-without-libdir-spec iris.src:25: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 25) iris.src: W: invalid-url Source0: iris-1.0.0-20110904.tar.gz iris-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/iris-1.0.0/src/xmpp/.moc iris-debuginfo.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/src/debug/iris-1.0.0/src/xmpp/.moc Is it .moc needed?? iris-devel.i686: W: no-documentation qjdns.i686: W: summary-not-capitalized C a simple DNS implementation that can perform normal as well as Multicast DNS queries qjdns.i686: E: summary-too-long C a simple DNS implementation that can perform normal as well as Multicast DNS queries Also easy to deal. qjdns.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Multicast -> Multics, Simulcast qjdns.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mdnsd -> madness qjdns-devel.i686: W: no-dependency-on qjdns/qjdns-libs/libqjdns Dependency missing? qjdns-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 14 warnings. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [-] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Please send patches to upstream author (may be except libidn system usage which must have comment what it Fedora related only) and add comments on appropriate bugreports. [-] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. src/xmpp/base and src/xmpp/base64 need clarification. Do you receive answer from author? Also still there question about mixed copyrights of Barracuda Networks and Justin Karneges. May we threat it as one author, or they parts of code just borrowed?? [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [-] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. Please provide exact revision in checkout comment instruction and in version instead of date to be able reproduce tarball. [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [=] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [=] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [=] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [+] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [-] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. See before, some parts still needs clarification. [=] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+/-] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. I suppose you does not target it for Epel 5. [+/-] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+/-] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). If it targeted to Epel5 too - please add this directives. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [=] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [=] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+/-] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). If it targeted to Epel5 too - please add this. [+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [-] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} qjdns-devel does not required qjdns [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [=] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. == SHOULD Items: == [-] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Please ask upstream author to include MIT license for JDNS. [=] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [=] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. I think in our case such dependency opposite shouldn't be. [=] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #18 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; 2011-11-13 13:57:19 EST --- Yes, but highly appreciated: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/WhyUpstream -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #20 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2011-11-15 14:43:00 EST --- licensing/copyright clarification mail sent upstream to http://lists.affinix.com/pipermail/delta-affinix.com/ (not in it's archives yet) -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #22 from Kevin Kofler <kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org&gt; 2011-11-15 17:23:47 EST --- That's not compliant to the packaging guidelines. You're supposed to use either 20110904svn or 20110904svn812. -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #24 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2011-11-20 17:38:37 EST --- Spec URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/iris/iris.spec SRPM URL: http://rdieter.fedorapeople.org/rpms/iris/iris-1.0.0-0.8.20110904svn812.f... %changelog * Wed Nov 16 2011 Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 1.0.0-0.8.20110904svn812 - fix Release -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #26 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; 2011-12-11 16:58:41 EST --- I think main question about affiliate Justin Karneges with Barracuda Networks (permissive content). Did you got any answer from author? -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #28 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2011-12-12 13:52:03 EST --- To my question that iris can be included with some missing copyright headers, fedora-legal responded with: "So, the answer here is yes (with caveats), as long as we have clear evidence that the files are part of a larger work where there is consistent licensing intent." full response here, http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2011-December/001765.html it is my opinion this means that the lack of clear copyright headers in this case should not be considered a review blocker. To be clear, however, I will continue my efforts to get upstream to clarify. -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #30 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2011-12-19 05:57:23 EST --- You can if you insist, but does is my asking the very question (and getting an answer) from spot on fedora-legal list not satisfactory to you? -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #32 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu&gt; 2011-12-20 17:11:26 EST --- Both of those files were imported by remko into the iris project subversion repo, whose project-wide license is LGPLv2. So, yes, Id argue, again, the requirements are satisifed. Now, can we please continue? -- 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.

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=749885 Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #34 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan(a)hubbitus.info&gt; 2012-01-02 04:48:56 EST --- Rex, please excuse me for the so long time silence. End or year was very-very hot for me on my workplace. $ rpmlint iris-1.0.0-0.8.20110904svn812.fc16.src.rpm iris.src:77: W: configure-without-libdir-spec iris.src:27: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 5, tab: line 27) iris.src: W: invalid-url Source0: iris-1.0.0-r812.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Mix of space trivial to fix. Other issues lifted. So, PACKAGE APPROVED. P.S. Again sorry for such long delay. -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #36 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-01-03 08:25:52 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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.

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=749885 --- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2012-01-10 18:05:00 EST --- clementine-0.7.1-4.fc16.1,tomahawk-0.3.3-4.fc16,libechonest-1.2.1-1.fc16,qca-cyrus-sasl-2.0.0-0.3.beta3.fc16,jreen-1.0.1-4.fc16,iris-1.0.0-0.10.20110904svn812.fc16,qtweetlib-0.3.0-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/clementine-0.7.1-4.fc16.1,tomahaw... -- 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.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749885 Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |projects.rg(a)smart.ms Alias|iris | --- Comment #40 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg(a)smart.ms&gt; --- Removing alias to allow general search for bugs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component