[Bug 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-05 19:02:17 --- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- figlet-2.2.5-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- figlet-2.2.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #46 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- figlet-2.2.5-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #47 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- figlet-2.2.5-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #36 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
C/C++
[x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[ ]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot is not needed unless packager plans to package for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint figlet-debuginfo-2.2.5-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint figlet-2.2.5-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint figlet-2.2.5-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/pcpa/rpmbuild/820642/figlet-2.2.5.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : d88cb33a14f1469fff975d021ae2858e
MD5SUM upstream package : d88cb33a14f1469fff975d021ae2858e
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
include it.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported
[Bug 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #37 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- Yeah, it's a shame for the font, but anyway is _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ ___| |_| |_ _ ____ ___ ___ | | | | '_ \| '__/ _ \ __| __| | | | / __/ _ \ / _ \| | | _ _ _| |_) | | | __/ |_| |_| |_| | | (_| (_) | (_) | |_| (_|_|_) .__/|_| \___|\__|\__|\__, | \___\___/ \___/|_(_) |_| |___/ Thanks for the review. I'm leaving %buildroot and %clean as is my intention to build for EPEL 5. Regards, --Simone -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #38 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: figlet Short Description: A program for making large letters out of ordinary text Owners: slaanesh Branches: el5 el6 f16 f17 InitialCC: -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #39 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- figlet-2.2.5-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/figlet-2.2.5-1.el5 -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- figlet-2.2.5-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/figlet-2.2.5-1.el6 -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- figlet-2.2.5-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/figlet-2.2.5-1.fc16 -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #43 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- figlet-2.2.5-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/figlet-2.2.5-1.fc17 -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #34 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- Hello, any news from Legal? Is there a way I can check the progress on this or as part of the Legal scrutiny updates will be posted here in the bug? Thanks regards, --Simone -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #35 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- It looks like legal problems were cleared. (In reply to comment #33) Lifting FE-Legal. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #32 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- Hello, I noticed 2.2.5 has come out with the aforementioned changes to licensing. Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet-2.2.5-1.fc17.src.rpm I also added a quick diff file between 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 source tarballs so you can check all the differences between the copyright / license headers easily: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet-2.2.4-2.2.5.diff Can we proceed with the review? Many thanks, --Simone -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #33 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- Lifting FE-Legal. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #29 from Claudio Matsuoka cmatsu...@gmail.com --- We've just been informed by Jonathan McCrohan of Debian that: During a review of my updated figlet 2.2.4-1 package[1], it was discovered that the fonts directory still contains non-distributable files. An example of these files are the fonts/8859-*.flc files. These files contain the following paragraph: 'Unicode, Inc. specifically excludes the right to re-distribute this file directly to third parties or other organizations whether for profit or not'. Bart Martens has helpfully suggested that the files could be replaced by the following re-distributable file [2]. (...) [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=673096#18 [2] ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859/8859-3.TXT; The plan is to fix this problem upstream using Bart Martens' proposal. Please also review this option and if no further problems are found we'll release 2.2.5 with these changes. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #30 from Claudio Matsuoka cmatsu...@gmail.com --- Regarding comment #29, John Cowan informs that: Those should simply be replaced by the verbatim contents of the corresponding files at http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/ISO8859 . In addition, the jis0201.flc file should be replaced likewise by the verbatim contents of http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/OBSOLETE/EASTASIA/JIS/JIS0201.TXT . (Don't worry, the mapping is not obsolete; that's just a hint that Unicode Inc. isn't maintaining these files -- but this one doesn't actually need any maintenance.) The other *.flc files were written by me (or Glenn and me, in the case of upper.flc), and should be under the same license as FIGlet itself. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #31 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- Thanks for pushing this. I will wait on 2.2.5 to provide an updated package. Regards, --Simone -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #27 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- All of the fonts are not scalable, they're made of ordinary ascii as far as I know. Any news from Claudio Matsuoka regarding the license calrifications? -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #28 from Claudio Matsuoka cmatsu...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #23) A comment, which describes which file has which license is still missing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios (In reply to comment #13) John Cowan from the FIGlet development team informed us that: Bitmap fonts are in the public domain in the U.S., because they are considered insufficiently creative to copyright. Specifically, the actual *appearance* of a font cannot be copyrighted, and bitmaps are considered just a trivial transformation of the appearance. Scalable fonts are computer programs, though, and are copyrightable. According to that, the fonts should be Public Domain and that license is missing yet. It is well understood that the appearance of fonts (the typeface) is public domain. I'm not sure, however, about the files containing their encoding in a specific format such as the FIGlet FLF font file. My interpretation is that the bitmapped typeface can be freely copied as public domain, but the font file containing the encoding of the file can be subject to a license such as the one already used for the main package (so no other license is necessary). -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #21 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- Hello, come back from holiday right now, thanks for all the input. Here is the updated package and spec file: Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet-2.2.4-7.fc17.src.rpm - ms-dos fonts have been removed, I will create a separate figlet-fonts package for all the extra fonts. - Added check command to %check, reading the tests.log file I see them all pass. - Replaced make macro with actual command as suggested by rpmdev-newspec. - Added compile flags (%optflags) to make command to make sure they are passed at compile time. Thanks, --Simone -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #22 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- I forgot to say that I left buildroot etc. intentionally as I plan to build it also for EPEL 5. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 --- Comment #23 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org --- A comment, which describes which file has which license is still missing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios (In reply to comment #13) John Cowan from the FIGlet development team informed us that: Bitmap fonts are in the public domain in the U.S., because they are considered insufficiently creative to copyright. Specifically, the actual *appearance* of a font cannot be copyrighted, and bitmaps are considered just a trivial transformation of the appearance. Scalable fonts are computer programs, though, and are copyrightable. According to that, the fonts should be Public Domain and that license is missing yet. Blocking FE-LEGAL to get clarification of the above and a English to yes/no translation... (More aabout that in comment #9 comment #20) -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 --- Comment #24 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com --- Thanks, still waiting for the reply at comment #9 to see which files have which license. I will add the appropriate license files and comments to the spec/srpm file when a response is available. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mru...@matthias-runge.de --- Comment #25 from Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de --- There's also a ticket at debian regarding license issues: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=274950 -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820642 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tcall...@redhat.com --- Comment #26 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #23) A comment, which describes which file has which license is still missing: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios (In reply to comment #13) John Cowan from the FIGlet development team informed us that: Bitmap fonts are in the public domain in the U.S., because they are considered insufficiently creative to copyright. Specifically, the actual *appearance* of a font cannot be copyrighted, and bitmaps are considered just a trivial transformation of the appearance. Scalable fonts are computer programs, though, and are copyrightable. According to that, the fonts should be Public Domain and that license is missing yet. Blocking FE-LEGAL to get clarification of the above and a English to yes/no translation... (More aabout that in comment #9 comment #20) I would agree with John Cowan's assessment of the fact that non-scalable bitmap fonts are not copyrightable in the United States and can safely be treated as being in the Public Domain in Fedora. Are all of these fonts clearly bitmap fonts and not scalable? -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642
Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||toms...@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-17
08:01:06 EDT ---
Further issues:
- %{optflags} are not honored:
+ /usr/bin/make
gcc -c -g -O2 -Wall -DTLF_FONTS -DDEFAULTFONTDIR=\/usr//share/figlet\ \
-DDEFAULTFONTFILE=\standard\ -o figlet.o figlet.c
- utf8.* has license ISC
- Please write specifically which files have which license as comment in the
spec file (Didn't found a file in the tarball, which would describe that...)
- I'm +1 for the split into figlet-fonts, mentioned in comment #9.
(In reply to comment #13)
John Cowan from the FIGlet development team informed us that:
Bitmap fonts are in the public domain in the U.S., because they are
considered insufficiently creative to copyright. Specifically, the actual
*appearance* of a font cannot be copyrighted, and bitmaps are considered
just a trivial transformation of the appearance. Scalable fonts are
computer programs, though, and are copyrightable.
Who considers [them] insufficently creative to copyright?
I'm highly suggesting blocking FE-LEGAL and being sure that the licensing
issues are clear, when you have added the comment to the spec file, which file
has which 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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mclean...@gmail.com --- Comment #19 from Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org 2012-05-17 08:01:52 EDT --- *** Bug 454917 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 --- Comment #20 from Claudio Matsuoka cmatsu...@gmail.com 2012-05-17 09:07:44 EDT --- Who considers [them] insufficently creative to copyright? I did a small research on the subject and found the following pieces of information on the comp.fonts FAQ. Note however that this is valid only in US, and more important to the topic of this discussion, all fonts with objectionable licenses are part of a set of contributed fonts which are not part of the main figlet package (which contains only properly licensed material). It is relevant only if an extra package containing contributed fonts is to be generated. Volume 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations specifies this about the copyrightability of typefaces: The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained: . . . typeface as typeface 37 CFR 202.1(e). The regulation is in accordance with the House of Representatives report that accompanied the new copyright law, when it was passed in 1976: The Committee has considered, but chosen to defer, the possibility of protecting the design of typefaces. A 'typeface' can be defined as a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters. The Committee does not regard the design of typeface, as thus defined, to be a copyrightable 'pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work' within the meaning of this bill and the application of the dividing line in section 101. H. R. Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Congress, 2d Session at 55 (1976), reprinted in 1978 U.S. Cong. and Admin. News 5659, 5668. It's also in accordance with the one court case I know of that has considered the matter: Eltra Corp. V. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294, 208 USPQ 1 (1978, C.A. 4, Va.). The U.S. Copyright Office holds that a bitmapped font is nothing more than a computerized representation of a typeface, and as such is not copyrightable: The [September 29, 1988] Policy Decision [published at 53 FR 38110] based on the [October 10,] 1986 Notice of Inquiry [published at 51 FR 36410] reiterated a number of previous registration decisions made by the [Copyright] Office. First, under existing law, typeface as such is not registerable. The Policy Decision then went on to state the Office's position that 'data that merely represents an electronic depiction of a particular typeface or individual letterform' [that is, a bitmapped font] is also not registerable. 57 FR 6201. However, scalable fonts are, in the opinion of the Copyright Office, computer programs, and as such are copyrightable: ... the Copyright Office is persuaded that creating scalable typefonts using already-digitized typeface represents a significant change in the industry since our previous [September 29, 1988] Policy Decision. We are also persuaded that computer programs designed for generating typeface in conjunction with low resolution and other printing devices may involve original computer instructions entitled protection under the Copyright Act. For example, the creation of scalable font output programs to produce harmonious fonts consisting of hundreds of characters typically involves many decisions in drafting the instructions that drive the printer. The expression of these decisions is neither limited by the unprotectable shape of the letters nor functionally mandated. This expression, assuming it meets the usual standard of authorship, is thus registerable as a computer program. 57 FR 6202. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr ||a...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #14 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 2012-05-16 22:38:42 EDT --- I am taking the package for review. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642
--- Comment #16 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 2012-05-16
23:31:17 EDT ---
ok MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/figlet-2.2.4-6.fc18.src.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/figlet-2.2.4-6.fc18.x86_64.rpm
figlet.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/chkfont
figlet.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/figlet
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
ok MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
ok MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
++ MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Not explicitly stated in guidelines, but should use
make %{?_smp_mflags} or make
instead of
%{__make}
Should not rm -rf %{buildroot}
Should not need to specify Buildroot tag.
But either of the above are cosmetic, and not mandatory.
ok MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
ok MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
ok 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]
ok MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
ok MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
ok 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.
$ md5sum figlet-2.2.4.tar.gz ms-dos.tar.gz
ea048d8d0b56f9c58e55514d4eb04203 figlet-2.2.4.tar.gz
49aa57ab989e8d952be037414b0bbbe4 ms-dos.tar.gz
ok MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
++ 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.
Not confirmed to build on all architectures.
ok 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.
ok MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
ok 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.
ok MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
ok 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.
ok 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.
ok MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
ok MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
ok MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
ok MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
ok 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).
ok 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.
ok MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
ok MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package.
ok MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
ok MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
ok MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
[Bug 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 --- Comment #12 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2012-05-14 04:05:12 EDT --- I also added a small comment at the top of the spec file with the source code repository, I could not find the info on figlet's website. --Simone -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 --- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2012-05-14 04:04:28 EDT --- Hello, thanks for all the input. I've made all the modifications requested. New files without contributed fonts and review fixes at: Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet.spec SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet-2.2.4-6.fc17.src.rpm Regards, --Simone -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 --- Comment #13 from Claudio Matsuoka cmatsu...@gmail.com 2012-05-14 06:56:13 EDT --- Hi, John Cowan from the FIGlet development team informed us that: Bitmap fonts are in the public domain in the U.S., because they are considered insufficiently creative to copyright. Specifically, the actual *appearance* of a font cannot be copyrighted, and bitmaps are considered just a trivial transformation of the appearance. Scalable fonts are computer programs, though, and are copyrightable. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no changed: What|Removed |Added CC||terje...@phys.ntnu.no --- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2012-05-11 03:01:45 EDT --- rpmbuild will compress the man pages for you, you can remove the gzip line. -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642
--- Comment #5 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2012-05-11 03:28:55
EDT ---
Hello,
here are the changes:
1- Removal gzip of man pages
2- Removal of %defattr
3- Removal of configurable system executables
I left the %{buildroot}, %clean and first line of %install intentionally as I
want to mantain the package also for EPEL5.
Here are the updated files, I bumped revisions:
Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet.spec
SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet-2.2.4-5.fc17.src.rpm
Thanks,
--Simone
--
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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642
--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2012-05-11 03:28:36
EDT ---
Hello,
here are the changes:
1- Removal gzip of man pages
2- Removal of %defattr
3- Removal of configurable system executables
I left the %{buildroot}, %clean and first line of %install intentionally as I
want to mantain the package also for EPEL5.
Here are the updated files, I bumped revisions:
Spec URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet.spec
SRPM URL: http://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/figlet-2.2.4-4.fc17.src.rpm
Thanks,
--Simone
--
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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 --- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2012-05-11 03:29:22 EDT --- Sorry for double posting, browser error. Second comment is 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642
--- Comment #7 from Terje Røsten terje...@phys.ntnu.no 2012-05-11 07:21:28
EDT ---
All man pages is marked as %doc by rpmbuild, you can drop the %doc macro here.
Listing is recursive by default:
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*
could just be:
%{_datadir}/%{name}
--
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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 --- Comment #8 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2012-05-11 07:35:28 EDT --- Thanks, applied the changes; spec file is at the same place. Any chance someone might take this for review? It has been opened since 2009... -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642
pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr
||a...@gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from pcpa paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com 2012-05-11
11:14:05 EDT ---
I did talk a bit with Claudio Matsuoka about this package, and the work he
did to contact upstream to get several files relicensed under MIT/BSD like
licenses.
Claudio has a git repository at https://github.com/cmatsuoka/figlet
I did a quick review on fonts headers, and Claudio will add the LEGAL
NOTICE file commented in fonts derived from Bigelow Holmes ones. But
I am unsure about this in the file being added:
A royalty-free, nonexclusive trademark
license to refer to the code and output as OPEN LOOK compatible
is available from ATT if, and only if, the appearance of the
icons or glyphs is not changed in any manner except as absolutely
necessary to accommodate the standard resolution of the screen or
other output device, the code and output is not changed except as
authorized herein, and the code and output is validated by ATT.
Bigelow Holmes is the owner of the Lucida (R) trademark for the
fonts and bit-mapped images associated with the materials on this
tape. Users are granted a royalty-free, nonexclusive license to use
the trademark only to identify the fonts and bit-mapped images if,
and only if, the fonts and bit-mapped images are not modified in any
way by the user.
The large C64-fonts subdirectory of the contrib fonts may have issues,
as all it says is:
NOTE: I got the font from a Commodore 64 charactor set file. (Wrote a little
program to convert them to Figlet). And since some charactors are different in
PETSCII then in ASCII, certain charactors will be different or even
non-existant. Such as `~{}\| _^
Most other artistic fonts come from usenet posts with the font
contents, with some interesting ones, like:
3x5 font by Richard Kirk (r...@crosfield.co.uk).
Ported to figlet, and slightly changed (without permission :-})
by Daniel Cabeza Gras (ba...@dia.fi.upm.es)
Otherwise, most if not all have an explicit clause of free to modify,
relicense, resell. Others are explicitly public domain, or have only
author name.
I suggest not adding the contributed fonts to the main package and having
a plain figlet with only the upstream fonts, and at your interest, making
yet another figlet-fonts package and getting legal review of it.
About figlet.spec I think you should remove the shell script commented
and the %defattr commented. Not agains't comments, but comments should
be for some explanation about the reason of next code, information about
generated files, etc.
As commented previously, you could change:
%dir %{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_bindir}/*
%{_datadir}/%{name}/*
to
%{_datadir}/%{name}
%{_bindir}/*
but either way works; some like to add a slash to the end to make it
easier to notice it is a directory listing.
--
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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 Claudio Matsuoka cmatsu...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||cmatsu...@gmail.com --- Comment #10 from Claudio Matsuoka cmatsu...@gmail.com 2012-05-11 14:06:04 EDT --- I agree with pcpa. The main figlet package and bundled fonts is clear license-wise, but contributed fonts should be screened for potential violations. After this screening I can move confirmed non-free contributed fonts to a separate repository upstream and contact individual authors to resolve licensing 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642 Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ra...@bludgeon.org --- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com 2012-05-10 10:59:36 EDT --- *** Bug 489830 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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 820642] Review Request: figlet - A program for making large letters out of ordinary text
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=820642
--- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2012-05-10 14:39:43 EDT
---
I guess the licensing issue which caused so much problems has been fixed.
You should not use macro forms of simple executables, like %{__rm}. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Macros:
Macro forms of system executables SHOULD NOT be used except when there is a
need to allow the location of those executables to be configurable. For
example, rm should be used in preference to %{__rm}, but %{__python} is
acceptable.
%defattr(-, root, root, 0755) is unnecessary.
BuildRoot: %clean and the first line of %install are unnecessary unless you
intend to build this for EPEL5.
--
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
