[Bug 177117] Review Request: libtlen - Tlen.pl client 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: libtlen - Tlen.pl client library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177117





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-07-28 14:06 EST -------
You've said on IRC that you'll add the dist tag, so no worries there.

The major issue I see is with the license.  The only file I see that actually
has a license statement is lib/asciitab.h which is GPL/MPL.  The only thing that
says LGPL is the sourceforge page, which unfortunately really isn't sufficient.
 Perhaps I'm just not looking in the proper place, though; am I missing a
license statement somewhere?

* source files match upstream:
   b77c0a3234a21d1b79df8a8b9a9b9534  libtlen-20041113.tar.gz
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* Prerelease snapshot naming is correct: 0-0.1.20041113
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
X dist tag is not present.
* build root is correct.
? license field matches the actual license.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libtlen-0-0.1.20041113.x86_64.rpm
   libtlen.so.1()(64bit)
   libtlen = 0-0.1.20041113
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   libtlen.so.1()(64bit)

  libtlen-devel-0-0.1.20041113.x86_64.rpm
   libtlen-devel = 0-0.1.20041113
  =
   libtlen = 0-0.1.20041113
   libtlen.so.1()(64bit)

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* shared libraries are present; ldconfig is called as necessary and unversioned
.so links are in the -devel package.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets 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 the -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.

-- 
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.