[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|mj-1.10-5.fc13 |mj-1.10-6.fc13 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-26 00:33:08 EDT --- mj-1.10-6.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System 2010-09-13 15:51:39 EDT --- mj-1.10-6.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mj-1.10-6.fc13 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||mj-1.10-5.fc13 Resolution||ERRATA -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System 2010-05-31 14:16:18 EDT --- mj-1.10-5.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System 2010-05-04 02:13:11 EDT --- mj-1.10-5.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update mj'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mj-1.10-5.fc13 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System 2010-05-02 05:39:22 EDT --- mj-1.10-5.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mj-1.10-5.fc13 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #26 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-05-01 16:35:14 EDT --- Bother! Missed that. I'll fix it. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added CC||supercy...@163.com --- Comment #25 from Chen Lei 2010-05-01 13:35:51 EDT --- The debug subpackage is empty, please fix it. e.g. make install STRIP=/bin/true http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Debuginfo#Useless_or_incomplete_debuginfo_packages_due_to_packaging_issues -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System 2010-05-01 13:11:42 EDT --- mj-1.10-4.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mj-1.10-4.fc13 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #23 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-04-28 22:12:00 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Göran Uddeborg changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #22 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-04-28 17:04:17 EDT --- That's correct, I'm already a seasoned packager with a total of one previous package in Fedora. :-) Seriously, thanks a lot for all your comments! Time to request a CVS module. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mj Short Description: Mah-Jong program with network option Owners: goeran Branches: F-13 InitialCC: -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #19 from Klaus Grue 2010-04-28 04:22:55 EDT --- > Here's my next try ... Perfect. Sorry for not responding before. As a new packager, I do not know if I can approve your package, but as far as I am concerned: - This package (mj) is APPROVED by grue - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored says: Review and approval for the first package for new packagers must be done by registered sponsors. Subsequent reviews can be done by any package maintainer. Informal reviews can always be done by anyone interested. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join#Get_Sponsored also says: When the package is approved by the reviewer, you must separately obtain member sponsorship in order to check in and build your package. I do not really know what you (or I) should do from here. But I suppose next step will be you find a sponsor. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Klaus Grue changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #21 from Klaus Grue 2010-04-28 06:16:36 EDT --- > Göran is already in fedora packager's group and already has > a sponsor, so if you think this package can be approved, > you can set fedora-review flag to +. OK. Thanks. Done. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #20 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-28 04:31:44 EDT --- Klaus: Göran is already in fedora packager's group and already has a sponsor, so if you think this package can be approved, you can set fedora-review flag to +. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #18 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-04-22 17:17:47 EDT --- Here's my next try: SPEC: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/mj/mj.spec SRPM: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/mj/mj-1.10-4.fc13.src.rpm It contains a version of the tar file only including GPL sources. A simple script inspired by the wiki example is also included. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #17 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-04-21 17:28:36 EDT --- Ah, now I understand the confusion! When one states a pattern like %_bindir/* in the files section, the pattern gets expanded at packaging time. So it expands to everything that is installed in the %_bindir in the buildroot created during %install. The created package only owns the expanded values, not the patterns as such. You see the result if you do "rpm -ql" (or "rpm -qlp" before installation) on it. What you see then are the values actually stored in the package. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #16 from Klaus Grue 2010-04-21 07:43:18 EDT --- > > %_bindir/* > > %_mandir/man1/* > > I suppose those lines say that mj owns everything in bin and man1. > Yes, that's correct, it does. I don't quite understand what you > mean the issue is though. OK. It seems there is no issue. RPM seems to be sensible: > su > touch /usr/bin/foo > rpm -qf /usr/bin/foo file /usr/bin/foo is not owned by any package > rpm -i mj-1.10-3.fc13.x86_64.rpm > rpm -qf /usr/bin/foo file /usr/bin/foo is not owned by any package > rpm -e mj > rpm -qf /usr/bin/foo file /usr/bin/foo is not owned by any package So mj does not claim ownership of /usr/bin/foo and does not erase it at uninstall. So it is probably OK to use %_bindir/* and %_mandir/man1/* --- > Would you like to have a Danish version included too? That would be nice:-) But no, I think it has a cost in maintenance which is not worth paying. Having the Swedish version is nice. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Göran Uddeborg changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Göran Uddeborg changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||NOTABUG --- Comment #15 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-04-20 16:58:43 EDT --- Thanks for your comments. I'll make an updated version without the non-GPL tiles in a couple of days. In the mean time, a few short comments. > The Swedish description and summary matches the American > English ones. Nice with a reviewer able to verify that! :-) Would you like to have a Danish version included too? > ... one can see that > things like "#F0" have changed to things like "ivory" > many places in the tiles-kdegames. I assume that is a > consequence of some change in kgegames ... It could also be a packager being bad in keeping the change log up to date. :-) I'll add a note. > %_bindir/* > %_mandir/man1/* > I suppose those lines say that mj owns everything in bin and man1. Yes, that's correct, it does. I don't quite understand what you mean the issue is though. Do you find it more pretty to explicitly list the three files in each directory? I don't have any strong opinion, I could do either way. Or do you mean something else? How should I understand your comment? -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Klaus Grue changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|g...@diku.dk --- Comment #14 from Klaus Grue 2010-04-19 15:06:25 EDT --- Tasaka> To Klaus: Tasaka> As you are sponsored, you can formally review this. Would you Tasaka> want to do so? I will try to take it from here. Thanks for your help. Now I think only two issues remain: As Mamoru Tasaka mentioned, the non-GPL tiles must be removed: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code When I read the spec again for consistent use of macros, this caught my eye: %files ... %_bindir/* %_mandir/man1/* I suppose those lines say that mj owns everything in bin and man1. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290
--- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-19
13:54:43 EDT ---
spot, thank you for auditing this.
(In reply to comment #11)
> Is it ok to include non-GPL tiles in the source package
> when the non-GPL tiles are not included in the binary packages?
> I suppose I should ask Tom 'spot' Callaway about that, but
> how should I do that? By a direct e-mail to him with a copy
> on the present page?
- As the license of the tiles is legally forbidden on Fedora,
these files should also be removed from the source tarball
itself. Please refer to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code
> The package uses the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/
> which is owned by package hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch. How
> can I know whether or not one needs to require
> hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch?
- Usually for gtk2-dependent packages we don't add "R: hicolor-icon-theme"
explicitly because gtk2 already has this dependency.
> Packaging guidelines says that "Each package must consistently
> use macros." Is this a question of using either $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
> style or %{optflags} style?
- I usually interpret this like:
* Once a macro is defined by in the spec explicitly, the packager
should always use the macro where the macro can be used.
For this package, as %icondir is explicitly defined,
"/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps" should always be replaced
by %icondir.
* Also when some already-defined macros can be used, we should
use such macros as much as possible.
* A packager should not use both %optflags and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS but
choose one.
To Klaus:
As you are sponsored, you can formally review this. Would you
want to do so?
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway 2010-04-19 13:05:19 EDT --- The author asserting his "moral rights" is not a problem. As was pointed out, he cannot actually waive them in his legal jurisdiction. :) Lifting FE-Legal. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290
--- Comment #11 from Klaus Grue 2010-04-12 05:17:46 EDT ---
Now I have looked at mj-1.10-3.
There are NO remaining actions for the packager (Göran Uddeborg)
as far as I can see.
We wait for one answer from Tom 'spot' Callaway on "moral rights".
I have three questions to Mamoru Tasaka:
Is it ok to include non-GPL tiles in the source package
when the non-GPL tiles are not included in the binary packages?
I suppose I should ask Tom 'spot' Callaway about that, but
how should I do that? By a direct e-mail to him with a copy
on the present page?
The package uses the directory /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/
which is owned by package hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch. How
can I know whether or not one needs to require
hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch?
Packaging guidelines says that "Each package must consistently
use macros." Is this a question of using either $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
style or %{optflags} style?
---
Comments on mj-1.10-3
Doing a diff of mj-1.10-2 and mj-1.10-3 one can see that
things like "#F0" have changed to things like "ivory"
many places in the tiles-kdegames. I assume that is a
consequence of some change in kgegames and should not be
mentioned in the mj changelog.
OK
> > > Why are man pages not user writable?
> > It's an upstreams decision.
> OK. As long as man pages are uninstallable, it must be OK that
> they are not writable.
PS. I meant "As long as man pages can be uninstalled..."
I have checked installing and erasing the package and the
man pages appear and disappear as they should.
OK
> > ... except lazyfixed.c, lazyfixed.h, vlazyfixed.c, and
> > vlazyfixed.h which refer to
> > GNU Lesser General Public License (any version).
> > Is that a problem?
>
> Obviously not for distributability. Reading the first answer of
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F
> I believe that the license tag should only say the stricter license (GPL) in
> this case. Do you agree? Or should I ask fedora-legal about this (too)?
I agree. OK.
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #10 from Klaus Grue 2010-04-11 11:26:10 EDT --- Just one more quick note. mj builds fine on PPC and PPC64: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2108393 I return later. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #9 from Klaus Grue 2010-04-10 17:40:05 EDT --- I will return as soon as possible. Just a few short notes. --- > > > mj.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install > > > mj.src: W: no-buildroot-tag > > Could you take a look at that? > As I understand it, none of these have been needed since F-10 I agree. One should probably ignore rpmlint here. --- > I believe the best thing is to follow the general rule from the naming > guidelines and use the same name as the upstreams package. I agree. It is fortunate that 'mj' is not taken (as far as I have been able to see). --- > I can't imagine how it could make a difference if the author > "asserts" a right he can't surrender anyway. Julian Bradfield lives in Edinburgh (UK). So I think this applies: > It is important to note that authors or creators must choose > to assert their Moral Rights (they are not automatic as > copyright is), but at the same time, Moral Rights can never > be assigned - they remain with the author even if he or she > assigned the copyright to a publisher or some other organisation. So I think Julian Bradfield knows exactly what he does. I agree there would be no point in asserting moral rights in Scandinavia. --- > > Why are man pages not user writable? > It's an upstreams decision. OK. As long as man pages are uninstallable, it must be OK that they are not writable. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #8 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-04-10 17:01:58 EDT --- > What does "the moral rights" mean? Wikipedia can explain what it *means*: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29 I'll leave to Fedora Legal to clarify if this statement in the code is a *problem* in any way. I believe not, but IANAL. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #7 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-04-10 16:59:35 EDT --- I got a prompt reply from Julian Bradfield, the upstreams maintainer. Essentially, he says that if he were to start over, he would probably call the package something like mah-jong. But he doesn't want to impose a name change on the current user base. In particular since the package is only maintained now, not further developed. I believe the best thing is to follow the general rule from the naming guidelines and use the same name as the upstreams package. After all, this is not the only package with a two-letter name in Fedora. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290
--- Comment #6 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-04-10 14:01:57 EDT
---
Thanks a lot for your review, or pre-review strictly speaking. This is only my
second package for Fedora so I'm new at this myself.
> I only get two errors from rpmlint:
> > mj.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
> > mj.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
> Could you take a look at that?
As I understand it, none of these have been needed since F-10
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag). I'm only
planning to ask for this to be released for F-13. Thinking about it, that
actually means I could simplify a bit more, and remove the %clean section too.
> 'mj' is a *very* short name.
> Do you think upstream would
> be willing to change name to e.g. mahjong-1.10
> or mahjongg-1.10?
It is indeed short. It will hardly hurt to discuss it with upstreams. I'll
send him a letter and ask.
Including a version number to distinguish two completely different programs
like Mah-Jong from mj and the solitaire Mah-Jong from gnome-games might not be
ideal. Version numbers in command names are typically used when you explicitly
want to use a particular version, like for automake and python.
Until upstreams changes, I guess the rules from the naming guidelines about
following upstreams prevail and I keep the name? Or should I change the naming
specifically for Fedora?
> The application is written in C but uses neither
> $RPM_OPT_FLAGS nor %{optflags}
Ah! Forgot that! Thanks, I'll fix.
> … should also BuildRequire desktop-file-utils (mj.spec doesn't)
It's indirectly required. But it's probably better do require it explicitly.
I'll add it.
> mj.spec contains
> two instances of %define. Is that needed?
Nope, old habits die hard. I'll fix it.
> Consider using
> cp -p ../tiles-v1/tong* .
Good point, I will.
> But then I suppose the tiles-v1/ directory should be removed from
> the source package since otherwise the source package will contain
> tiles which are not GNU GPL.
Are you saying I should modify the tar file? I thought that was something we
didn't do. And since I don't actually *use* the restricted tiles, they are not
part of the binary package, I thought this was ok.
But I may be wrong. Should I bother fedora-legal once more about this, maybe?
> … except lazyfixed.c, lazyfixed.h, vlazyfixed.c, and
> vlazyfixed.h which refer to
> GNU Lesser General Public License (any version).
> Is that a problem?
Obviously not for distributability. Reading the first answer of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple_licensing_situations.3F
I believe that the license tag should only say the stricter license (GPL) in
this case. Do you agree? Or should I ask fedora-legal about this (too)?
> … the author claims moral rights.
> Does that have any effect?
I can't imagine how it could make a difference if the author "asserts" a right
he can't surrender anyway. But I see that Mamoru Tasaka has already brought
that up with Fedora Legal while I was writing this reply, wo I guess we will
have an answer.
> I am unable to test PPC. What shall I do?
I *expect* it to build on PPC. Later when I can start builds via koji, I can
verify that it indeed does. If there is a way to verify earlier, I would like
to know just as much as you.
> How can I find out if one needs to require
> hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch and
> policycoreutils-2.0.62-12.14.fc11.x86_64 ?
/usr/share/man/man1 is owned by filesystem too, so policycoreutils should not
be needed.
There seems to be plenty of packages that places things in
/usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/, but much fewer require
hicolor-icon-theme. So I guess it's default. But maybe all those packages
should have required it?
> Why are man pages not user writable?
It's an upstreams decision. The Makefile.in in the tar file sets them to
read-only for all. Is this something I should change as packager? Is there
any rule that files like man pages should be user writable? There are rules
that the permissions should be set "properly". But it's not clear to me that
r--r--r-- is less proper than rw-r--r-- for a manual page. Do I miss
something?
I've made an updated version including those things that were clear:
SPEC: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/mj/mj.spec
SRPM: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/mj/mj-1.10-3.fc13.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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 Mamoru Tasaka changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235(FE-Legal) --- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka 2010-04-10 13:44:59 EDT --- Hi, spot: Many source codes contain: /** COPYRIGHT STATEMENT ** * This file is Copyright (c) 2000 by J. C. Bradfield. * * Distribution and use is governed by the LICENCE file that * * accompanies this file.* * The moral rights of the author are asserted. * * * What does "the moral rights" mean? -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290
--- Comment #4 from Klaus Grue 2010-04-10 02:47:17 EDT ---
Here is the pre-review. It is my first pre-review.
M. Tasaka has promised to take a look at it.
There are quite a number of open points in it where
I don't know what to do.
I have built the source RPM for x86_64 and i386.
Running rpmlint on the binary packages causes no complaints.
Below I go through
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines
step by step (rather mechanical - sorry - but I hope that
is a reasonable way to start).
Below, "you" means "the packager".
For each comment I make below I have added one of the
following attributes after the comment:
ACTION The packager must do or say something
QUESTION I am in doubt what to do here
OK Selfexplanatory
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output
should be posted in the review.
> I should mention that if you run rpmlint on the SRPM,
> you will get several warnings about spelling errors
> in the Swedish description, referring to words from
> the English description. From what I can tell, this
> is because of some bug in rpm, see bug 578299.
I only get two erros from rpmlint:
> mj.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
> You should clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %clean
> section and in the beginning of the %install section.
> Use "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". Some rpm configurations
> do this automatically; if your package is only going
> to be built in such configurations, you can ignore
> this warning for the section(s) where your rpm
> takes care of it.
> mj.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
> The BuildRoot tag isn't used in your spec. It must
> be used in order to allow building the package as
> non root on some systems. For some rpm versions (e.g.
> rpm.org >= 4.6) the BuildRoot tag is not necessary
> in specfiles and is ignored by rpmbuild; if your
> package is only going to be built with such rpm
> versions you can ignore this warning.
Could you take a look at that?
[[NOTE: "you" means the packager in the line above,
i.e. Göran Uddeborg, not Mamoru Tasaka]]
ACTION
MUST: The package must be named according to the
Package Naming Guidelines.
Naming guidelines are met.
But 'mj' is a *very* short name. There are only
26^2=676 package names which consist of two, small
letters, so I suppose such names are reserved.
The name matches the upstream tar-ball
(mj-1.10-src.tar.gz). Do you think upstream would
be willing to change name to e.g. mahjong-1.10
or mahjongg-1.10? Those names do not appear to be
taken yet. In particular, /usr/bin/mahjongg belongs
to gnome-games-2.26.3-1.fc11.x86_64.
ACTION
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package
%{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your
package has an exemption.
OK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
The application is written in C but uses neither
$RPM_OPT_FLAGS nor %{optflags}
ACTION
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_usage
says that one should use desktop-file-install (mj.spec does that)
and should also BuildRequire desktop-file-utils (mj.spec doesn't)
ACTION
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define
says that you should use %global instead of %define, unless
you really need only locally defined submacros within other
macro definitions (a very rare case). mj.spec contains
two instances of %define. Is that needed?
ACTION
Consider using
cp -p ../tiles-v1/tong* .
rather than
cp ../tiles-v1/tong* .
c.f. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps
ACTION
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora
approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
License in upstream tar file:
> The programs are distributed under the GNU General
> Public License, version 2, or at your discretion
> any later version.
Part of the upstream tar file, however, is non-GNU.
The mj.spec file says:
# The bundled tiles have a non-commercial-use license. So instead we
# use GPL tiles from kdegames instead. The solution was suggested by
# Tom 'spot' Callaway in:
# http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-February/001109.html
As mentioned in tiles-v1/README it is questionable whether or
not the bundled tiles have a non-commercial-use license. Thus
it is questionable whether or not the tiles can be GNU GPL.
Tom 'spot' Callaway says the tiles are not GNU GPL.
Using GPL tiles from kdegames as indicated above seems like a
good idea. That guarantees that the tiles used are GPL.
But then I suppose the tiles-v1/ directory should be removed from
the source package since otherwise the source package will contain
tiles which are not GNU GPL.
ACTION
The upstream .c and .h files refer to the LICENSE file for license
information except lazyfixed.c, lazyfixed.h, vlazyfixed.c, and
vlazyfixed.h which refer to
G
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #3 from Klaus Grue 2010-04-09 16:56:33 EDT --- I have done a pre-review of the package and filed it under Bug 523715 -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #2 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-04-05 12:19:05 EDT --- I realized the scriptlets I used were not quite following the current packaging standards. I've made a slightly updated version of the package to fix that: Spec URL: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/mj/mj.spec SRPM URL: ftp://ftp.uddeborg.se/pub/mj/mj-1.10-2.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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option
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=578290 --- Comment #1 from Göran Uddeborg 2010-03-30 16:15:34 EDT --- I should mention that if you run rpmlint on the SRPM, you will get several warnings about spelling errors in the Swedish description, referring to words from the English description. From what I can tell, this is because of some bug in rpm, see bug 578299. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
