Re: merging kparal/rpmguard-integration into master
by Kamil Paral
----- "Will Woods" <wwoods(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, one question - did you make rpmguard AGPLv3 (instead of
> GPLv3)
> intentionally? If so, why? Should we think about relicensing other
> tests
> as AGPLv3?
>
Err, the licensing problems... :) Actually I try to license all my
personal projects under AGPL, so I put it here too. We can change it to
anything that is suitable for/compatible with our project.
Personally I prefer AGPL to GPL because it applies not only to
traditional way of distributing source code (downloading and running
locally) but also to using the source code as a web service.
These days almost anything can be used as a web service (even
traditional end-user software like openoffice - eg. for document
conversion on the server). Everything starts to be pushed "to the
cloud". So, some big company could come, take
many opensource projects, heavily modify them and offer the result
as a web service - and give nothing back. I don't like that idea,
because I believe the principles that are the core of GPL do not
relate to distribution channels - just the cloud computing
simply didn't exist back in time when GPL was created. This also
confirms RMS, who said that the very definition of AGPL3 should
have really been the GPL3. But he was afraid the GPL3 wouldn't
be adopted by many groups at all, and there were also other
important changes to push ahead, so he split them into GPL3 (the
basic one) and AGPL3 (the extra amendment about web distribution).
He was probably right, companies like Google don't object against
GPL3, but they would be extremely reluctant to adopt software
under AGPL3 (see allowed licenses for Google Code hosting :).
So, that's my point of view, I don't see any reason to prefer GPL
to (more freedom ensuring) AGPL. Maybe except for license compatibility:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
AGPL3 is not listed in the matrix - I suppose it should fall into
same category as GPL3, but I am not sure. I will try to ask FSF
probably.
Once again, this was my opinion used for my personal projects.
It's up to you to decide for the license. (I don't even know if - as
an employee of Red Hat - I am or I am not obliged to publish my work
under some specific license. I suppose when concerning Fedora stuff
it's up to our choosing as long as it's OSS license. The copyright
probably goes to Red Hat.)
PS: I really hate that we have to study lawyer stuff to publish work
as free and open :)
14 years, 3 months
merging kparal/rpmguard-integration into master
by Kamil Paral
Hi,
it seems to me that the kparal/rpmguard-integration branch is now
mature enough to be merged into master.
You can try the rpmguard test by issuing:
1. checkout kparal/rpmguard-integration branch
2. $ /usr/share/autoqa/post-koji-build/watch-koji-builds.py --dry-run
3. pick a line
4. $ (copy that line) -t rpmguard --local
And look to stdout or rpmguard.log. Example rpmguard.log:
http://pastebin.com/f534d362f
http://pastebin.com/f42ca41cd
What do you think, any objections to merge? Send all blame to me,
thanks.
Kamil
PS: It doesn't currently send results by email, same as current rpmlint
test. I hope we will discuss enabling them both soon after.
14 years, 3 months
[AutoQA] #99: rpmguard: Document rpmguard's checks
by fedora-badges
#99: rpmguard: Document rpmguard's checks
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: kparal | Owner: kparal
Type: task | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Package update tests
Component: tests | Version: 1.0
Keywords: rpmguard |
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Document all checks that rpmguard performs, add a short explanation to
each. Current possible destination is the AutoQA Trac wiki.
Blocked on ticket #98.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/99>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project
14 years, 3 months
Re: [AutoQA] #98: rpmguard: Improve output format
by fedora-badges
#98: rpmguard: Improve output format
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Reporter: kparal | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: closed
Priority: major | Milestone: Package update tests
Component: tests | Version: 1.0
Resolution: fixed | Keywords: rpmguard
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
Changes (by kparal):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => fixed
Comment:
Fixed by commit ca7f1e0ce0f22ddfdfe9c10c9e3b1f3beea88209.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/98#comment:1>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project
14 years, 3 months
TRAC tickets bcc'd to the mailing list?
by James Laska
Hey folks,
Would people be interested in having trac ticket updates automatically
bcc'd to the mailing list? I thought it might increase the visibility
the milestones people are working on. But wasn't sure if people would
consider it SPAM.
Thanks,
James
14 years, 3 months
