[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mLxMCIsOJ8a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 --- Comment #10 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=orhfpxSGDJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-05-09 01:25:32 --- Comment #11 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Rebuilt on all branches, push requested for stable branches, closing. Thank you for reviewing and git procedure. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ekVfXDuMEya=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Ah, that where that was, thanks. I remember that bug couldn't find it. Approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xRT2Cq4ABTa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Thank you! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: xfe Short Description: X File Explorer File Manager Owners: mtasaka Branches: f17 f18 f19 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PJ40xgIaeRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 Bug 958150 depends on bug 958149, which changed state. Bug 958149 Summary: Review Request: fox - C++ based Toolkit for developing Graphical User Interfaces https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958149 What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QAwITNj9Nca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 --- Comment #5 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Now license clarification from spot: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2013-May/002168.html xvt.c is under BSD. So the whole license can be GPLv2+. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mRFqzJDjxQa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 --- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- Sorry, but I don't see where in the licensing guidelines it indicates that in such a situation the whole thing would GPLv2+. Wouldn't it be GPLv2+ and BSD and MIT ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XvtRyP7TATa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 --- Comment #7 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- This is explained as: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ?rd=Licensing/FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F i.e. GPLv2+ is strictest license among source files. BSD, MIT, and so on have no strictness relation between them, however GPL is special because GPL'ed file requires that other source files combined with it must have compatible (weaker) licenses. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e350Yc7vkGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 --- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Scratch build successful: F-20 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5332652 F-19 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5332655 F-18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5332658 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XnUls1wk3pa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Thank you for initial comments. For items listed in Issues: * Although SN_API_NOT_YET_FROZEN is quite messy, now xfe is changed to use system-wide startup-notification * I think xvt.c is just MIT, however clarification anyway is requested on legal mailing list. http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/xfe-related/xfe.spec http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/xfe-related/xfe-1.34-2.fc.src.rpm * Sat May 4 2013 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org - 1.34-2 - Try to use system-wide startup-notification Mock build log for F-19: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/xfe-related/MOCK-xfe.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1KE1gnuCZNa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||or...@cora.nwra.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues
===
- Bundled libraries/code:
* libsn - this appears to be startup-notification in Fedora and should
probably get ported to that (although it has this:
#ifndef SN_API_NOT_YET_FROZEN
#error libstartup-notification should only be used if you understand that it's
subject to frequent change, and is not yet supported as a fixed API/ABI or as
part of the platform
#endif
)
In any case it has an MIT license.
* xvt - I guess this would be considered a fork - but it is licensed:
/* Copyright 1992, 1993 John Bovey, University of Kent at Canterbury.
*
* Redistribution and use in source code and/or executable forms, with
* or without modification, are permitted provided that the following
* condition is met:
*
* Any redistribution must retain the above copyright notice, this
* condition and the following disclaimer, either as part of the
* program source code included in the redistribution or in human-
* readable materials provided with the redistribution.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED AS IS. Any express or implied
* warranties concerning this software are disclaimed by the copyright
* holder to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. In no
* event shall the copyright-holder be liable for any damages of any
* kind, however caused and on any theory of liability, arising in any
* way out of the use of, or inability to use, this software.
*
* ---
*
* In other words, do not misrepresent my work as your own work, and
* do not sue me if it causes problems. Feel free to do anything else
* you wish with it.
*/
Which is similar to BSD 2 clause. Might need to ask legal about it.
See also https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/saucy/+source/xfe/+copyright
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in xfe-theme
OK for noarch subpackage
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
MIT/X11 (BSD like), LGPL (v2.1 or later), LGPL (v2 or later), LGPL
(v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address), Unknown or generated. 98
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/export/home/orion/redhat/xfe-1.34/review-xfe/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: The spec file handles locales properly.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: update-desktop-database is invoked when required
Note: desktop file(s) in xfe
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4Zu1c8LMOca=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 958150] Review Request: xfe - X File Explorer File Manager
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=958150 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||958149 --- Comment #1 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Depends on fox (bug 958149 ). Mock build log for F-19 available on: http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/xfe-related/MOCK-xfe.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VNUBEWzVsFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
