Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: gfan - Software for Computing Gröbner Fans and Tropical Varieties
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475055
Summary: Review Request: gfan - Software for Computing Gröbner Fans and Tropical Varieties Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: konrad@tylerc.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/gfan.spec SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/gfan-0.3-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: The software computes all marked reduced Gröbner bases of an ideal. Their union is a universal Gröbner basis. Gfan contains algorithms for computing this complex for general ideals and specialized algorithms for tropical curves, tropical hypersurfaces and tropical varieties of prime ideals. In addition to the above core functions the package contains many tools which are useful in the study of Gröbner bases, initial ideals and tropical geometry. Among these are an interactive traversal program for Gröbner fans and programs for graphical renderings.
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=475055
--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu 2008-12-11 14:55:45 EDT --- Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=993871
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=475055
--- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-12-12 04:54:59 EDT --- New URLs:
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/gfan.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/gfan-0.3-2.fc9.src.rpm
Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=994565
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=475055
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-26 12:16:13 EDT --- Some notes:
* License - The license tag should be "GPL+" as no version is specified - However LICENSE (and also README) file also says that files under doc/ are non-free. Please follow
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohib... and remove all files under doc/ from the source tarball completely. - Include LICENSE file as %doc as this is important.
* CFLAGS - I guess ------------------------------------------------------------- export CFLAGS="%{optflags}" export CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}" ------------------------------------------------------------- is not needed.
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=475055
--- Comment #4 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2008-12-30 21:38:22 EDT --- Fixed; see:
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/gfan.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/gfan-0.3-3.fc9.src.rpm
Sorry for the delay.
However, LICENSE only says this: """ The manual for Gfan is NOT distributed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. The manual may be freely redistributed but is not allowed to be changed. The manual may be removed from the software package. """
Does that violate Fedora guidelines? I don't think so. (But I have removed doc/ from the srpm as per your advice anyways.)
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=475055
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-01 10:31:18 EDT --- Okay.
---------------------------------------------------------- This package (gfan) is APPROVED by mtasaka ----------------------------------------------------------
(In reply to comment #4)
However, LICENSE only says this: """ The manual for Gfan is NOT distributed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. The manual may be freely redistributed but is not allowed to be changed. The manual may be removed from the software package. """
Does that violate Fedora guidelines? I don't think so.
"The manual is not allowed to be changed" is definitely non-free, so this part cannot be in Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
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=475055
--- Comment #6 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-01 16:07:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
(In reply to comment #4)
However, LICENSE only says this: """ The manual for Gfan is NOT distributed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. The manual may be freely redistributed but is not allowed to be changed. The manual may be removed from the software package. """
Does that violate Fedora guidelines? I don't think so.
"The manual is not allowed to be changed" is definitely non-free, so this part cannot be in Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
""" Does Fedora permit anything under "Non-Free" licensing?
When it comes to software or fonts, the answer is definitely no. We strongly prefer that items classified as content (see Code Vs Content) are under a Free license, but we only require that they be freely distributable without restrictions. """
I think a manual is content as opposed to code and therefore freely distributable is ok.
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=475055
Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235
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=475055
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-01-12 17:47:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
I think a manual is content as opposed to code and therefore freely distributable is ok.
I hate this loophole. I really really really do. Can you ask upstream if we can have permission to make derived works of the manual?
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=475055
--- Comment #8 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-12 18:36:36 EDT --- (For those too lazy to read above: the current state of the package is that we are *not* shipping the manual.)
I will ask upstream to put something in their LICENSE about allowing derived works for the manual. If they insist upon not allowing derived works, I take it you (spot) would prefer we not ship the manual?
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=475055
--- Comment #9 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-12 18:37:49 EDT --- Oh, and because it is freely redistributable, is it ok to *not* cull this from the upstream tarball at each release (just remove it in %prep)?
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=475055
--- Comment #10 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-12 18:46:23 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328805) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328805) Email Body
This is the body of the email query I sent to Gfan's author.
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=475055
--- Comment #11 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-01-13 10:26:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9)
Oh, and because it is freely redistributable, is it ok to *not* cull this from the upstream tarball at each release (just remove it in %prep)?
Yes. There is no need to hack up the upstream tarball to remove this.
I'd really prefer we didn't ship the manual. I'm thinking seriously about closing this loophole with FESCo.
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=475055
Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #12 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-13 12:47:33 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gfan Short Description: Software for Computing Gröbner Fans and Tropical Varieties Owners: konradm Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC:
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=475055
Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |
--- Comment #13 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-13 12:50:34 EDT --- Oh, just kidding -- I didn't notice you changed the review flag back to '?'.
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=475055
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-14 10:11:36 EDT --- Okay, I re-approve this package.
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=475055
Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #15 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-14 11:36:22 EDT --- Thanks!
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=475055
--- Comment #16 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-01-14 16:19:08 EDT --- This is still blocking FE_LEGAL. Spot: should this be oked now? Or is it waiting pending something further?
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=475055
--- Comment #17 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-01-14 16:27:03 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16)
This is still blocking FE_LEGAL. Spot: should this be oked now? Or is it waiting pending something further?
Conrad, did you remove the manual from the package (not the tarball)?
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=475055
--- Comment #18 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-14 18:38:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
This is still blocking FE_LEGAL. Spot: should this be oked now? Or is it waiting pending something further?
Conrad, did you remove the manual from the package (not the tarball)?
Yup. (Went back to using the original (not-stripped) tarball though.)
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=475055
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235 |
--- Comment #19 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-01-15 11:00:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #17)
(In reply to comment #16)
This is still blocking FE_LEGAL. Spot: should this be oked now? Or is it waiting pending something further?
Conrad, did you remove the manual from the package (not the tarball)?
Yup. (Went back to using the original (not-stripped) tarball though.)
Lifting FE-Legal then. :)
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=475055
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #20 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-01-15 15:25:24 EDT --- cvs done.
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=475055
--- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-17 08:31:40 EDT --- Please submit push request also for F-9 on bodhi.
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=475055
--- Comment #22 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-17 19:10:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21)
Please submit push request also for F-9 on bodhi.
When I tried to submit updates on bodhi I kept getting 500 server errors. I'll try again.
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=475055
--- Comment #23 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-17 19:15:58 EDT --- Ok, bodhi thinks that "gfan-0.3-3.fc9 update already exists!" But it doesn't show up in the list nor do searches show anything.
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=475055
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |a.badger@gmail.com
--- Comment #24 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-18 09:19:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23)
Ok, bodhi thinks that "gfan-0.3-3.fc9 update already exists!" But it doesn't show up in the list nor do searches show anything.
I see this issue (I tried to submit gfan 0.3-3.fc9 updates request and got the same error).
CCing to Toshio. Would you examine what is happening?
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=475055
Luke Macken lmacken@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lmacken@redhat.com
--- Comment #25 from Luke Macken lmacken@redhat.com 2009-01-19 12:40:11 EDT --- The bodhi issue should be fixed. There was a stray PackageBuild lying around, without the corresponding PackageUpdate. You should be able to re-submit it without problems.
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=475055
--- Comment #26 from Conrad Meyer konrad@tylerc.org 2009-01-19 14:35:59 EDT --- Thanks.
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=475055
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #27 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-20 12:02:30 EDT --- Okay, now this review request is closed.
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=475055
Mark Chappell tremble@tremble.org.uk changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tremble@tremble.org.uk Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #28 from Mark Chappell tremble@tremble.org.uk 2010-03-17 04:08:02 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gfan New Branches: EL-5 Owners: tremble
Fedora owner not interested in EL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574081
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=475055
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #29 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-03-17 14:03:26 EDT --- cvs done.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org