https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cicku...@gmail.com
Block
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzil
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
I don't think that you need a sponsor, right?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/view/nmav
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notifi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #2 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1)
> I don't think that you need a sponsor, right?
Indeed sorry. I meant I need someone to review it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You ar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review?
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #4 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #3)
> Hi! By setting the fedora-review flag to '?' you indicate that the review is
> ongoing. It's normally set by the reviewer. When set it this way, review
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #5 from Alec Leamas ---
Hi again!
I'm no sponsor, but I noticed some issues (there are certainly more) while
skimming through your spec:
First, there are some things which are not needed unless you intend to use this
on EPEL. If
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas ---
Oh, you don't need a sponsor. I might be able t review this later then. Leaving
it unassigned if someone else wants to step in.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #7 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #5)
Thanks for the nice comments. I've addressed them (all except the first).
> I'm no sponsor, but I noticed some issues (there are certainly more) while
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas ---
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #7)
> (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #5)
>
> > Thou shall not use %makeinstall [1]
> I don't this it was used. I was using %make_install.
Oops, sorry,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #9 from Alec Leamas ---
Created attachment 821858
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=821858&action=edit
Licenses as listed by fedora-review
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #10 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #9)
> Created attachment 821858 [details]
> Licenses as listed by fedora-review
Hello, are the licenses uploaded because you see any issue with them?
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #11 from Alec Leamas ---
Now, I don't think we understand each other. I have run the fedora-review tool,
which basically runs the licensecheck tool but presents the results in a
slightly different way. These tools check all source
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #12 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
Ok now I understand. The other libraries are:
1. from CCAN, which is a repository of code. There is no library there that
could be added to fedora. So I don't think there is something that can b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nob...@fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #14 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
I've put the new spec and SRPMs at:
http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/
That includes the pcllib.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are alw
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #15 from Alec Leamas ---
OK, next step is that you make a new review request for pcllib. When you have
done that, mark this review as blocked by the new review request (enter new bug
# in the 'Depends On' field).
I'll try to follo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas ---
Answer on the list. You need to apply for a bundling exception at [1] for the
ccan files. Things to include in the request:
- That you apply for these files being handled as "copylib" as of [2].
- The answ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1029002
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #17 from Alec Leamas ---
Great! Looking into [2] in comment #16, there is already a copy-lib exception
for gnulib. Locate the link which should be referenced in a comment and don't
forget to add a 'Provides: bundled(gnulib)' and:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #18 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
Thank you for all the help. I have just submitted the exception request and
updated the spec for gnulib and to remove the bundled files.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #19 from Alec Leamas ---
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #18)
> Thank you for all the help.
You're welcome. I remember the feeling when I did my first package.,..
> I have just submitted the exception request an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #20 from Alec Leamas ---
Progress, indeed. The bundling issues are resolved besides ccan. (The build-aux
files can be shipped under the general autotools blanket). For ccan, we must
wait for fpc. Things will also become easier once
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #821858|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #22 from Alec Leamas ---
Oops, my bad again! The ccan license files are already in place. Sorry, forget
what I said about those"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #23 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
Hi Alec, is the situation with licenses that complicated? My understanding is
that the combination of MIT+BSD+GPLv2+ = GPLv2+ . That is because GPLv2 has the
strongest requirements on the final
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #24 from Alec Leamas ---
Hi!
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #23)
> Hi Alec, is the situation with licenses that complicated? My understanding
> is that the combination of MIT+BSD+GPLv2+ = GPLv2+ .
No. It works
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #25 from Alec Leamas ---
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #23)
> The GPLv3 files are not relevant for licensing purposes as they are only
> applicable to building -autotools (and it's pretty unfortunate that
> aut
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #26 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #25)
> (In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #23)
>
> > The GPLv3 files are not relevant for licensing purposes as they are only
> > applicabl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #27 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
(In reply to Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos from comment #26)
> I've checked it further and it seems that these are gnulib installed files.
> I've asked a question in gnulib-bugs lists. It may be a bu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #28 from Alec Leamas ---
Hm... As for ocserv, I think upstream has confirmed that the proper license for
those files should be GPLv2+. This makes it possible to patch the files, with
the reference above in a comment.
The easiest i
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #29 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
I have updated the srpm to combine the licenses and fix the build-aux license
text (from GPLv3 -> GPLv2). I don't understand how I can add a note in the
breakdown as you mention though. May I as
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #30 from Alec Leamas ---
The License: tag looks good. However, as stated in [2] you need to provide a
breakdown describing what files have what license (writing this is a comment
will become too much).
The breakdown is just a text
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #31 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #30)
> The License: tag looks good. However, as stated in [2] you need to provide a
> breakdown describing what files have what license (writing this is a c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #32 from Alec Leamas ---
Oops, you are such such a resourceful person I forget that this is your first
package. A somewhat easier way is something like;
Source4: PACKAGE-LICENSING
%install
cp -a %{SOURCE4} PACKAGE-LICENSING
%fil
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #33 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
Thanks, it should be better now. Let's see about the bundling exception.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to th
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #34 from Alec Leamas ---
The FPC didn't make a decision on it this week, they ran out of time. It should
be on top of the agenda next week, though. Also, I chatted a little with them
after the meeting and the ticket is seemingly OK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #35 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
Let's wait then :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #36 from Alec Leamas ---
Yup. In the meantime, you can close bug #1029002 as described in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/New_package_process_for_existing_contributors.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Bug 1027770 depends on bug 1029002, which changed state.
Bug 1029002 Summary: Review Request: pcllib - Portable Coroutine Library (PCL)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029002
What|Removed |Added
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #37 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
Bummer. Still no final decision for the bundled CCAN. Another weekly delay...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #38 from Alec Leamas ---
Yup. Pasting the link for tracking: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/364.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this produ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #39 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
As I understand permission seem to be granted!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #40 from Alec Leamas ---
Indeed. If you just update the Provides: + adds a link to the fpc ticket I
will approve this.
Please check your links, they seem broken right now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #41 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
The updated spec and SRPMs are at the following location:
http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/ocserv.spec
http://people.redhat.com/nmavrogi/fedora/ocserv-0.2.1-6.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are r
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #42 from Alec Leamas ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues
==
- Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
The last
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #43 from Ale
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #44
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #45 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: ocserv
Short Description: OpenConnect server (ocserv) is an SSL VPN server.
Owners: nmav
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC:
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #46 from Alec L
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #47 from Alec Leamas ---
After saying that, I squashed the fedora-cvs-flag. Sorry. It's better if you
reset it, though.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about cha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #48 from Alec Leamas ---
No, it actually seems ok, it just looked bad. Hate this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #49
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #50 from Jon Ciesla ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System ---
ocserv-0.2.1-6.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocserv-0.2.1-6.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #52 from Fedora Update System ---
ocserv-0.2.1-6.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ocserv-0.2.1-6.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for t
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #53 from Fedora Update System ---
ocserv-0.2.1-6.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #54 from Fedora Update System ---
ocserv-0.2.1-6.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #55
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
Jon Ciesla changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You are receiving this m
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #56 from Jon Ciesla ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_
65 matches
Mail list logo
