[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
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=483421 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Status Whiteboard|NotReady| -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
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=483421 Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #9 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org 2009-11-15 00:06:35 EDT --- Giving up. I don't know enough Java to understand what's necessary here. Hopefully someone can pick this up in a new bug and deal with the licensing problems there. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
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=483421 Till Maas opensou...@till.name changed: What|Removed |Added CC||opensou...@till.name Status Whiteboard||NotReady --- Comment #8 from Till Maas opensou...@till.name 2009-09-16 19:01:52 EDT --- Please remove NotReady from the Whiteboard once this review requests needs attention by a reviewer. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
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=483421 --- Comment #6 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org 2009-07-21 09:27:47 EDT --- Upstream mail: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/bouzereau-20090721.txt What do you suggest? I don't know the answer to his question :/ -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
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=483421 --- Comment #7 from Chris Tyler ch...@tylers.info 2009-07-21 10:34:11 EDT --- Looks like the only options are to eliminate the BASE64 functionality (what's it used for? it is required?), use a library licensed under other (GPL-compatible) terms, or get the original authors to additionally license the library under a GPL-compatible license. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
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=483421 --- Comment #5 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org 2009-07-20 14:33:07 EDT --- Will talk to upstream. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
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=483421 --- Comment #4 from Chris Tyler ch...@tylers.info 2009-07-14 11:10:05 EDT --- The license seems unclear: 1. The upstream web page just says GPL. 2. Most of the source files say GPLv2+ 3. One source file says GPLv2.1+ (thinlet/Thinlet.java) 4. One source file says CDDL (BASE64DecoderStream.java) 5. The GPL text file included is GPLv3 The CDDL and GPL are not compatible according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
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=483421 --- Comment #3 from Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org 2009-07-13 12:13:08 EDT --- The source for 2.7 isn't available on the site. Upstream contacted. Grepping all the source code tells me it's version 2+ of the GPL. * Mon Jul 13 2009 Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org 2.6-2 - noarch Spec: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/apophysis-j/2.6-2/apophysis-j.spec SRPM: http://ianweller.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/apophysis-j/2.6-2/apophysis-j-2.6-2.fc11.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
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=483421 --- Comment #2 from Chris Tyler ch...@tylers.info 2009-07-11 11:18:20 EDT --- Summary of review: X license text vs. spec file X noarch? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 483421] Review Request: apophysis-j - Fractal flame editor and creator, based on Apophysis
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=483421
Chris Tyler ch...@tylers.info changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ch...@tylers.info
--- Comment #1 from Chris Tyler ch...@tylers.info 2009-07-11 11:15:49 EDT ---
Review results: [x] Bad [+] Good [na] Not applicable
[x] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be
posted in the review.[1]
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[x] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. ### GPLv2+ in spec file vs. GPL3 text included in source zip
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4]
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture. [7]
[na] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except
for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
[na] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.[9]
[na] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[na] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [11]
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does
not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which
does create that directory. [12]
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. [13]
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include
a %defattr(...) line. [14]
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[na] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
[na] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
[na] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
[na] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires:
pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [21]
[na] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package. [19]
[na] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22]
[na] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la
