[Bug 182175] Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm)

[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: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable  functions (needed by eterm)


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182175





------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2006-02-23 02:59 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Or you could just get rid of your silly rules which discriminate against
> packages for no real reason.
> 
> The license is clearly posted in the spec file and in every .c file in the
> package.  The correct procedure for checking the license of a package on an
> RPM-based system is "rpm -q --qf '%{LICENSE}\n' <package>".  If that works and
> returns a standard response ("GPL," "BSD," "MIT," or similar), there should be
> no problem.

The point of the rule is to ensure that the license tag in the RPM matches the
actual license of the upstream package; that's something the reviewer needs to
check.

IMHO the presence of the license in the source files itself satisfies the "text
included" requirement and there's no need for a separate LICENSE file.

> Furthermore, the following requirements are just stupid and demonstrate either
> pointless fascism on the part of your policy makers or flaws in the design of
> your build system:
> 
> > - BuildRoot should be
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> > - The BuildRoot must be cleaned at the beginning of %install
> 
> The build system, not the individual RPM's, should ensure that the buildroot
> path is unique and clean prior to invoking rpmbuild.

Ideally yes, but rpm doesn't do this by default so it has to be done in each
package. Even if rpm was changed to do this automatically, packages desiring
compatibility with older distributions would still need to clean the buildroot
themselves.


-- 
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.