[Bug 2190] Review request: AtomicParsley - Command-Line Program to Read and Set iTunes-style Metadata Tags

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2190

--- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> 2012-03-05 11:51:16 CET ---
Since it seems clear from comment #2 that this could (and thus should) be
submitted to main fedora, I suggest that you close this bug and issue a new
request to bugzilla.redhat.com. However, since we started a kind a review here
I enclose some comments.

Cheers,

alec


(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #1)
[cut]

> > The License: tag does not reflect the fact that some code is MIT/X11
> > licensed. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Licensing.
> 
> Couldn't find a nothing on the source that says MIT/X11 license.

In the package rpmdev-tools there's a tool called licensecheck. If you apply it
 to the source it will reveal that some files related to iconv are MIT/X11

It will also reveal that some source files have the wrong fsf address. You
should inform upstream about this. If you want, you can patch it as well. 

> > You can't add COPYING yourself, you must contact upstream about that. And
> > upstream has already a COPYING in place. Are you replacing it? This is not
> > possible either for legal reasons.  After all, it's their code. If you have
> > problem with the fsf-address lint warning, just report to upstream, bring the
> > link (e. g., bugtracker  ticket) in here and live with the warning.
> 
> This is old code, there is no upstream. GNU office has moved to another address
> but the license file included reflects the old address and rpmlint is
> complaining. I'm just overwriting with the new file because of this small
> problem.

There's definitely an upstream at sourceforge where you can report.

We can just agree on that we disagree. However,  I would not appprove anything
like this, and I doubt anyone else will. I'm sorry not to have an authorative
link on this (it really should be in "Common rpmlint issues"!), but a simple
google search for the rpmlint warning will show you how this is handled.

> > Rpmlint shows empty debug package. Probably related to that you remove the -g
> > option to g++. You should not do that, generate debug info and let rpmbuild
> > strip to the debug package instead. And run rpmlint on the debug package as
> > well.
> 
> I can't generate debug packages. How to do that? I even removed the '-s'
> (strip) from 'install' but no debug package is generated.

rpmbuild --rebuild <srpm> and rpmbuild -ba <specfile> should both generates
debug packages as long as you don't have anything strange in your rpm setup

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.