[Bug 457924] Review Request: libmicrohttpd - Lightweight library for embedding a webserver in applications

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457924


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu




--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-08-09 22:25:49 EDT ---
This package needs a license review, I think.

You have License: LGPLv2, but the source files all seem to be either LGPLv2+ or
GPLv2+ (grep for "GNU Lesser" and "GNU General" and note the "any later
version" language present in all files).  However, I don't know if any of the
GPLv2+ stuff ends up on the final binary; it seems to be test-related.  You
will need to check that; if that's the case, then the final product is GPLv2+;
otherwise I think it would be LGPLv2+ unless some other license is involved.

rpmlint says:
  libmicrohttpd.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Actually the COPYING file should be in the main package, and this will go away
when that's fixed.  (Eliminating this complaint isn't the reason for moving the
COPYING file; we just want the license information in the package that people
will be installing.)

  libmicrohttpd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Not a problem.

  libmicrohttpd-doc.x86_64: E: zero-length 
   /usr/share/doc/libmicrohttpd-doc-0.3.1/html/d8/d26/microhttpd_8h__incl.map
Doxygen tends to do this for whatever reason.  I don't think it's a big
problem.

* source files match upstream:
   c38e3d74c1a97e2bd0442147003d6423acbe791979cb52d5e78b5fcfe95168ff  
   libmicrohttpd-0.3.1.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
X license text not included in main package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  libmicrohttpd-0.3.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libmicrohttpd.so.4()(64bit)
   libmicrohttpd = 0.3.1-1.fc10
   libmicrohttpd(x86-64) = 0.3.1-1.fc10
  =
   /sbin/ldconfig
   info
   libmicrohttpd.so.4()(64bit)

  libmicrohttpd-devel-0.3.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libmicrohttpd-devel = 0.3.1-1.fc10
   libmicrohttpd-devel(x86-64) = 0.3.1-1.fc10
  =
   libmicrohttpd = 0.3.1-1.fc10
   libmicrohttpd.so.4()(64bit)

  libmicrohttpd-doc-0.3.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm
   libmicrohttpd-doc = 0.3.1-1.fc10
   libmicrohttpd-doc(x86-64) = 0.3.1-1.fc10
  =
   /bin/sh
   libmicrohttpd = 0.3.1-1.fc10

* %check is present and all tests pass:
  All 3 tests passed
  All 15 tests passed

* shared libraries installed:
   ldconfig called properly.
   unversioned .so link is in the -devel package.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* scriptlets are OK (install-info, ldconfig).
* code, not content.
* documentation is in a separate package.
* headers are in the -devel package.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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.