[Bug 705917] New: Review Request: cmuclmtk - Language model trainer for CMU Sphinx speech decoders
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: cmuclmtk - Language model trainer for CMU Sphinx speech decoders
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705917
Summary: Review Request: cmuclmtk - Language model trainer for CMU Sphinx speech decoders Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: loganjerry@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cmuclmtk/cmuclmtk.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cmuclmtk/cmuclmtk-0.7-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This package provides the CMU Sphinx Language Model Training Kit. It is used to produce language models for consumption by the CMU Sphinx decoders: pocketsphinx, Sphinx3, and Sphinx4.
Fedora already has pocketsphinx and Sphinx3 (packaged as cmusphinx3).
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=705917
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-06-03 15:34:05 EDT --- I've moved on to Fedora 15, so I've rebuilt this as an fc15.src.rpm. It is otherwise identical. New URLs:
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cmuclmtk/cmuclmtk.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/cmuclmtk/cmuclmtk-0.7-1.fc15.src.rpm
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=705917
W. Michael Petullo mike@flyn.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mike@flyn.org AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mike@flyn.org Flag| |fedora-review?
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=705917
W. Michael Petullo mike@flyn.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal) Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
--- Comment #2 from W. Michael Petullo mike@flyn.org 2011-06-08 14:01:50 EDT --- Running rpmlint on SRPM:
cmuclmtk.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pocketsphinx -> pocket sphinx, pocket-sphinx, pocketknives cmuclmtk.src: W: invalid-url Source1: cmuclmtk-man.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
The first warning should be fine. I think the second is bacause rpmlint is not aware of the .xz extension, so this should also be fine. Running rpmlint on the binary packages:
cmuclmtk.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pocketsphinx -> pocket sphinx, pocket-sphinx, pocketknives cmuclmtk.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libcmuclmtk.so.0.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
The other question I have is about the license. The RPM specification lists "MIT and BSD." I'd like an expert to review the particular license or point to where the text has already been approved.
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=705917
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-06-14 13:33:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2)
The first warning should be fine. I think the second is bacause rpmlint is not aware of the .xz extension, so this should also be fine.
No, the .xz extension is understood. The warning just indicates that I didn't provide a URL, like http://some.web.site/cmuclmtk-man.tar.xz. That's because I wrote the man pages myself...
The other question I have is about the license. The RPM specification lists "MIT and BSD." I'd like an expert to review the particular license or point to where the text has already been approved.
That information comes from the top-level "COPYING" file. And, argh! I missed the "for research purposes only" clause in the MIT-like part of that file. I will write to upstream and see if that clause can be removed. If not, then this package cannot go into Fedora. Bummer.
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=705917
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |CANTFIX Last Closed| |2011-09-08 17:46:03
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2011-09-08 17:46:03 EDT --- It looks like the research-only clause cannot be removed soon, if at all. I'll close this review for now. If upstream ever manages to purge their codebase of that clause, I'll reopen the review. Thanks for taking a look at the package.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla