[Bug 185576] Review Request: dumb - IT, XM, S3M and MOD player library

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: dumb - IT, XM, S3M and MOD player library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185576





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-03-15 19:53 EST -------
This package has an incredibly poor license.  What's the point of stating a
bunch of meaningless conditions and then specifying that you can ignore them if
it makes the package GPL incompatible?  In any case, it's clear that the package
is explicitly GPL-compatible, and it's pointless to try to come up with any
other statement of the license.  So "GPL-Compatible" seems reasonable, although
"Dumb license" is tempting.

One question:
Why are readme.txt and release.txt part of the -devel package?  They seem to
contain useful end-user info, and so it seems to me as if they should be in the
main package.  There are a couple of other files under docs that could probably
be considered to be non-developer documentation as well (modplug.txt, faq.txt).

rpmlint only complains about the license:

W: dumb invalid-license GPL-Compatible
W: dumb-devel invalid-license GPL-Compatible

MUSTs:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written, and uses macros consistently.
* license field matches the license, as it is.
* license is open source-compatible and included as %doc.
* source files match upstream:
   3e345d643060880bab7c574774c4b35b  dumb-0.9.3-autotools.tar.gz
   3e345d643060880bab7c574774c4b35b  dumb-0.9.3-autotools.tar.gz-srpm
   f48da5b990aa8aa822d3b6a951baf5c2  dumb-0.9.3.tar.gz
   f48da5b990aa8aa822d3b6a951baf5c2  dumb-0.9.3.tar.gz-srpm
* package builds in mock on x86_64 and i386.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called as necessary.
* package is not relocatable.
* package does not create any directories.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* headers are in a -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* unversioned shared library links are in the -devel package.
* -devel package has a versioned dependency on the base package.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.
* Package owns no files that are owned by other packages.

Just the issue of the readme.txt and release.txt to discuss.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.