[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #9 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
Nathan, as you note in Comment 8, we are okay with versions 1.0.2 and older,
but you should not move to any newer versions unless the licensing issue is
resolved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293



--- Comment #8 from Nathan Scott  ---
Thanks for the heads-up Armijn.  I expect that we can continue to ship the
current versions of this (and the similarly-affected rebloom) Redis module in
Fedora, since these earlier releases are not affected by the license change.

However, this is far from ideal and this is a real shame - it seems like an
unfortunate direction for RedisLabs to have taken, from a Fedora POV.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YY7A6IAYYFISUSI7XSHSE74ZE7BZGEM4/

[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293

Richard Fontana  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tcall...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #7 from Richard Fontana  ---
Not sure if FE-Legal is appropriate in this case since this is closed but
alerting Tom Callaway who will know what to do.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QMXBS7RR2ADWQBK5T3CEGMCV7MK5NICG/

[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293



--- Comment #6 from Richard Fontana  ---
Blocking on Fedora Legal.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/SJURZ7B6AHYUQA7LXMKCJKBXMSIPXH7L/

[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293

Richard Fontana  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rfont...@redhat.com
 Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/2HMPTAQYUQ7NKRWGXR4UK4KX7UQU2IPP/

[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293

Armijn Hemel  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||arm...@tjaldur.nl



--- Comment #5 from Armijn Hemel  ---
A month ago the license was changed to Apache 2 with "Commons Clause". This
makes it incompatible with any open source license out there:

https://github.com/RedisLabsModules/rejson/blob/master/LICENSE

https://redislabs.com/community/commons-clause/

I would strongly recommend reconsidering the inclusion of this package.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IOX35Q65ZDLNMEWDUPTELSP6S3HVR4EH/

[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293

Nathan Scott  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-11-22 15:07:04



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293



--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rejson

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
All good, package accepted.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293



--- Comment #2 from Nathan Scott  ---
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1)
> Hello,
> 

Hi, thanks for reviewing!

>  - You *must* install the LICENSE file with the %license macro:
> 
> %files
> %license LICENSE
> 

Fixed.

>  - You should own /usr/lib64/redis and /usr/lib64/redis/modules or Requires
> a package that own these directories:
> 
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>  Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/redis, /usr/lib64/redis/modules
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>  Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/redis/modules,
>  /usr/lib64/redis
> 
>(Personally I think the Redis package sould be updated to own these
> directories)
> 

Fixed up as per BZ 1513291.

Updated packages at:
Spec URL: https://nathans.fedorapeople.org/rejson/rejson.spec
SRPM URL: https://nathans.fedorapeople.org/rejson/rejson-0.99.1-2.fc26.src.rpm

cheers.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1513293] Review Request: rejson - JSON data type for Redis

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513293

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

 - You *must* install the LICENSE file with the %license macro:

%files
%license LICENSE

 - You should own /usr/lib64/redis and /usr/lib64/redis/modules or Requires a
package that own these directories:

[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/redis, /usr/lib64/redis/modules
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/redis/modules,
 /usr/lib64/redis

   (Personally I think the Redis package sould be updated to own these
directories)



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
 attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[!]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "AGPL (v3)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD
 (3 clause)", "AGPL (v3 or later)", "ISC". 245 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/bob/packaging/review/rejson/review-rejson/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/lib64/redis, /usr/lib64/redis/modules
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/redis/modules,
 /usr/lib64/redis
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 634880 bytes in 40 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is