Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Eugene A. Pivnev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|656997 (kde-reviews)|928937 (qt-reviews)
-
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #57 from Fedora Update System ---
screengrab-0.9.96-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail bec
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #56 from Fedora Update System ---
screengrab-0.9.96-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail bec
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Re
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #55 from Michael Schwendt ---
I've added a different comment to bug 926062. If upstream wants "GPLv2 only",
ask for license clarification and a change of all source files that currently
claim "GPLv2 or (at your option)
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #54 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #53)
> There isn't any such thing. what is packaged now is sufficient.
This question is not exactly about this package.
I'm starting another package
(https://bugzill
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #53 from Rex Dieter ---
There isn't any such thing. what is packaged now is sufficient.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #52 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
> Not yet.
> Source contain files with GPLv2+, we don't know why upstream releases the
> software with a GPLv2 licence.txt file.
Where I can find GPLv2+ license.txt file?
--
You are rec
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA
--
You are
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #51 from Fedora Update System ---
Package screengrab-0.9.96-3.fc17:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #50 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #49)
> I believe it's fine to just do the f19 build for now, no need (nor possible)
> to submit an update.
No problem: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?tas
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #49 from Ville Skyttä ---
I believe it's fine to just do the f19 build for now, no need (nor possible) to
submit an update.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #48 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #47)
> (In reply to comment #46)
> > Fixed in 0.9.96-3
>
> Good, just don't forget the f19 build (only f17, f18, and f20 ones seem to
> be done at the moment).
"bash
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #47 from Ville Skyttä ---
(In reply to comment #46)
> Fixed in 0.9.96-3
Good, just don't forget the f19 build (only f17, f18, and f20 ones seem to be
done at the moment).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #46 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #43)
> Package is not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS:
> http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/screengrab/0.9.96/2.fc19/data/
> logs/x86_64/build.log
>
> Fix upstream
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System ---
screengrab-0.9.96-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/screengrab-0.9.96-3.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #44 from Fedora Update System ---
screengrab-0.9.96-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/screengrab-0.9.96-3.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Ville Skyttä changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |ASSIGNED
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #42 from Fedora Update System ---
screengrab-0.9.96-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
h
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--
You are
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #41 from Fedora Update System ---
screengrab-0.9.96-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/screengrab-0.9.96-2.fc18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System ---
screengrab-0.9.96-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/screengrab-0.9.96-2.fc17
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--
You
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #39 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #38)
> Seems that it is not thing that I need now...
I need NOT now, sorry.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #38 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> For el6, we can ask for libqxt to be branched and built for epel-6 too (i
> can help maintain it, if it's primary maintainer isn't interested in
> supporting ep
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #37 from Rex Dieter ---
For el6, we can ask for libqxt to be branched and built for epel-6 too (i can
help maintain it, if it's primary maintainer isn't interested in supporting
epel)
--
You are receiving this mail b
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #36 from Jon Ciesla ---
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=MSth8L91TV&a=
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Eugene A. Pivnev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--- Comme
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #34 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> We can't ship using the bundled library, period.
It's time to git.
I want to pack for el6 too. It's possible
(http://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=sc
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #33 from Kevin Kofler ---
Yeah, the problem is that projects do different things with different settings.
:-( For KDE projects (and some others such as this one), Release is best (it
only misses -g, but that gets picke
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #32 from Rex Dieter ---
You may recall, I lobbied to set a default in %cmake too , but the conclusion
of discussion on -devel list was that there was opposition to implementing
that.
--
You are receiving this mail be
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #31 from Kevin Kofler ---
> 2. SHOULD: add -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release back , the %cmake macro doesn't
> set
> this. not setting this means you miss out on:
Ugh, you're right, we don't set this in %cmake, only in %
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Flags|fedora-
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #29 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> 1. SHOULD saying License: GPLv2
Done.
> 2. SHOULD: add -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release back
Fixed
> 3. SHOULD remove deprecated items in .spec
Fixed
> 4. S
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #28 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> So, working on packaging 0.9.96+ may indeed be the best strategy.
Yes. Current "unstable" can upload screenshots to external image hostings.
> Do you know or c
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #27 from Rex Dieter ---
That distinction does not matter.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from th
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #26 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> We can't ship using the bundled library, period.
Screengrab rpm has no binary libs inside - it linked with it's libs staticaly
(by design).
--
You are receivi
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #25 from Rex Dieter ---
We can't ship using the bundled library, period. So, working on packaging
0.9.96+ may indeed be the best strategy.
Hopefully the this unstable development version will become "stable" relative
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #24 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Ideally, could you contact your upstream and ask them for clarification?
I'm trying for last 3 days. No effect.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #23 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> 5. MUST: address bundled libraries, try to use system copy of qxt instead.
> If you need help implementing this, I can take a closer look.
This is solved in
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #22 from Rex Dieter ---
thanks Michael. :)
I may as well start a formal review.
1. SHOULD saying License: GPLv2
here is justifiable too, given the About box text. It's not *wrong*, I just
consider GPLv2+ to be mo
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #21 from Michael Schwendt ---
That the actual license preamble in source files may take precedence is a
combination of these three:
*
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.2
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #20 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> License statements in source headers take precedence really, so, still GPLv2+
"...(at your option)..."
I prefere to have no option. So - I _can_ leave strict v2
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter ---
License statements in source headers take precedence really, so, still GPLv2+
though, I can't find any statement in our licensing guidelines that says that
right now.
I *did* find more reading
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #18 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary
> rpm. When in doubt, ask."
Ok - I started screengrab and clicked About:
"Copyright ©
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #17 from Rex Dieter ---
Re: comment #13, multiple licensing
I disagree that multiple licensing is applicable or required here.
Note: per,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
"
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #16 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Post again the links to SPEC and SRPM file when you end.
Current SPEC and SRPM:
http://dox.eap.su/rpms/screengrab/screengrab.spec
http://dox.eap.su/rpms/screeng
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #15 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> In particular, src/3rdparty/qxt is from
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libqxt.git/ and should use the system
> libqxt package.
I know. Current "unstable"
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #14 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> How are you using the %cmake macro? It should be at least:
> %cmake ..
It is
> And what error are you getting?
Something like "... first defined here"
It tries
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #13 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Source contain files with GPLv2+, we don't know why upstream releases the
> software with a GPLv2 licence.txt file.
Author not reply yet.
So - I found GPLv2 (ma
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #12 from Kevin Kofler ---
In particular, src/3rdparty/qxt is from
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/libqxt.git/ and should use the system libqxt
package.
Some of the stuff in src/common is also being built as a libra
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #11 from Kevin Kofler ---
How are you using the %cmake macro? It should be at least:
%cmake ..
(You can add -D options to that to add to or override the ones %cmake sets.)
And what error are you getting?
As for the b
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #10 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Please use the %cmake macro
Compile error. Maybe - because of built-in libraries (?).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bu
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #9 from Kevin Kofler ---
> cmake .. -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=release
Please use the %cmake macro (which also takes care of setting
CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX and CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE for you).
--
You are
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Kevin Kofler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #8 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> Source contain files with GPLv2+, we don't know why upstream releases the
> software with a GPLv2 licence.txt file.
Ok - will wait author's reply to me. Seems th
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
>
> > Regarding to the license, also GitHub reports a GPLv2
> Fixed
>
Not yet.
Source contain files with GPLv2+, we don't know why upstr
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #6 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Something like that should be sufficient:
Fixed
> Regarding to the license, also GitHub reports a GPLv2
Fixed
> Increase release number for every change on .spe
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #5 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > - Source link is wrog, it's a https.
> Real current link: http://screengrab.doomer.org/download/screengrab-0_9_1_/
> (http://screengrab
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #4 from Eugene A. Pivnev ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> - Source link is wrog, it's a https.
Real current link: http://screengrab.doomer.org/download/screengrab-0_9_1_/
(http://screengrab.doomer.org/download/) - but it
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #3 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> > - License should be a GPLv2.
>
> What makes you say that? Looking at the source files, I see a mixture of
> BSD and GPLv2+ , which do effectively combine to GP
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter ---
> - License should be a GPLv2.
What makes you say that? Looking at the source files, I see a mixture of BSD
and GPLv2+ , which do effectively combine to GPLv2+
--
You are receiving this mail
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||trp...@katamail.com
---
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rdie...@math.unl.edu
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919044
Eugene A. Pivnev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR
66 matches
Mail list logo
