[Bug 530743] New: Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743

Summary: Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SPECS/tmux.spec
SRPM URL: http://sven.lank.es/Fedora/SRPM/tmux-1.0-1.fc12.src.rpm

Description: tmux is a "terminal multiplexer."  It enables a number of
terminals (or windows) to be accessed and controlled from a single terminal. 
tmux is intended to be a simple, modern, BSD-licensed alternative to programs
such as GNU Screen.

rpmlint is silent. 
Scratch-Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1766279

The spec was created by Chess Griffin (bz #506755). I'm taking over as Chess
currently doesn't have enough time to finish the new-packager process.

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

Sven Lankes  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #1 from Sven Lankes   2009-10-24 13:25:24 EDT ---
*** Bug 506755 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #2 from Marcus Moeller   2009-10-27 04:29:26 EDT ---
This is an informal review.

rpmlint output is clean.

MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate. OK
MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used
consistently. OK
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines. OK, even if there is no LICENSE or COPYING file, all
source package seems to include a license preamble. See below.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
licenses. OK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. OK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A
MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. OK
MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. N/A
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package
that owns the directory. OK
MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK
MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK
MUST: Clean section exists. OK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A
MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect
runtime of application. OK
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files
ending in .so must go in a -devel package. N/A
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. N/A
MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A
MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK
MUST: Buildroot cleaned before install. OK
SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK
SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK
SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #3 from Sven Lankes   2009-10-27 19:10:37 EDT ---
Marcus,

thanks for looking at the package
> SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from
> upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. NEEDSWORK

I have talked to upstream about this - the maintainer is strongly opposed to
adding LICENSE-Files. His argument is that licensing and copyright are per
file.

As the license is clearly stated in *every* source-file this shouldn't be an
issue for the package.

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

Simon Wesp  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
                   |                            |g
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
                   |                            |g
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

Christoph Wickert  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         AssignedTo|[e-mail] |[e-mail]
                   |g                           |

--- Comment #4 from Christoph Wickert   2009-10-29 09:19:28 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> As the license is clearly stated in *every* source-file this shouldn't be an
> issue for the package.

It is, because we don't ship the sourcecode. Ether convince upstream to add the
files or add one yourself. I'd prefer a single file with both license texts and
a short notice which files are under the BSD license.

Two more minor comments:

In the patch you should set MANDIR to ${PREFIX}/share/man instead of
${PREFIX}/man

Use 
%{_mandir}/man1/tmux.1.*
instead of 
%{_mandir}/man1/tmux.1.gz
because compression of the manpages is a transparent process done by rpmbuild.
We could also switch to bz2 or lzma as discussed on fedora-packaging-list
recently.

Marcus, some comments on your review: 
You should not only check that the source matches upstream by md5, but also the
mdssum. In this case it's 716b12d9ea052f57d917bf2869d419df for both.

MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. N/A
Should be OK instead of N/A. :)

You could also have done a scratch build like
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1776460

Apart of that, your review was good.

Sven, the only remaining blocker is the license issue.

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

Sven Lankes  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #5 from Sven Lankes   2009-10-29 09:52:48 EDT ---
> It is, because we don't ship the sourcecode. Ether convince upstream to add the
> files or add one yourself. I'd prefer a single file with both license texts and
> a short notice which files are under the BSD license.

I cannot find any justification that this is mandatory and spot 
doesn't think so either:

14:45 < killefiz> spot: do I have to create a LICENSE-File for an RPM if
upstream doesn't supply one (he doesn't want to add one either)
14:45 < spot> killefiz: no, it is not required.

I'll upload a new spec addressing the two other issues you raised later today
(unless you want me to upload as is and add fixes later).

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway   2009-10-29 10:05:37 EDT ---
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

"If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its
own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package
must be included in %doc. If the source package does not include the text of
the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to
correct this mistake."

It is explicitly (and intentionally) not mandatory. I would encourage you to
note in the spec file (in comments) the licensing situation and breakdown.

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

Christoph Wickert  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Christoph Wickert   2009-10-29 10:52:07 EDT ---
I have to admit that I still disagree because this is a package with multiple
licenses. The users will nether see the headers nor the spec, all they have is
the info from rpm -qi.

However if Spot says it's ok and you are not willing to add a README.licensing,
I don't insist on this as a blocker. The package is APPROVED

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #8 from Christoph Wickert   2009-10-29 11:06:17 EDT ---
BTW: Debian has a couple of interesting patches for tmux, see
http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/tmux/1.0-1

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

Sven Lankes  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #9 from Sven Lankes   2009-10-29 11:51:04 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: tmux
Short Description: A terminal multiplexer
Owners: slankes
Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

Kevin Fenzi  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-cvs?                 |fedora-cvs+

--- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi   2009-10-31 19:41:08 EDT ---
cvs done.

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System   2009-11-11 13:41:27 EDT ---
tmux-1.1-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tmux-1.1-1.fc12

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |ON_QA

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System   2009-11-12 21:35:36 EDT ---
tmux-1.1-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update tmux'.  You can provide
feedback for this update here:
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-11477

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System   2009-11-24 02:58:35 EDT ---
tmux-1.1-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|                            |1.1-1.fc12
         Resolution|                            |ERRATA

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #14 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)   2010-01-02 11:17:58 EDT ---
Sven Lankes, do you plan push updates for EPEL5 and Fedora 11?

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #15 from Sven Lankes   2010-01-02 11:46:41 EDT ---
The latest release is in EPEL5-stable and and I'm not planning to push it to
F11 or EPEL4.

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #16 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)   2010-01-02 11:52:57 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #15)
> I'm not planning to push it to F11 or EPEL4.

Then for what you request F-11 branch before?

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #17 from Sven Lankes   2010-01-02 12:12:09 EDT ---
I have requested the branch so that I could 
push tmux it to F11 if anyone requested it.

Noone has asked for tmux on F11 yet.

If you want tmux for F11 please file a bug and I'll 
see if it works on F11 (it should) and push an update.

Let's not continue this discussion in this closed bug 
please - file a new one if you want an F11-package and 
if there is anything else, send me an email.

Thanks.

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #18 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)   2010-01-03 07:02:01 EDT ---
No one has asked you to add tmux to Fedora :)
You start it process, request some branches and stop on middle.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #19 from Christoph Wickert   2010-01-03 07:45:37 EDT ---
Pavel, Sven joined the Fedora Project before you and (unlike you) he knows the
new package process. If you want to request a new branch, please file a bug or
write him a mail, but please let this review rest in order to avoid useless
email notifications to the people that are subscribed to this bug. Thanks for
your understanding.

[Bug 530743] Review Request: tmux - A terminal multiplexer

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=530743

--- Comment #20 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)   2010-01-03 08:19:31 EDT ---
Guys, I do not even try say what anything don't known new package process. I
really do not try say anything bad. But there nothing subject to new bugreport!
I do not want request new branch at all!!! I only mention what Sven forgot
import tmux in *already requested* ( there before, comment 9:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530743#c9 ) and created F-11
branch!