Search results for "contribute to wiki"

Re: Why is Fedora not a Free GNU/Linux distributions?

by Rick Stevens

Les Mikesell wrote: > Rick Stevens wrote: >> >>> Yup. But IIRC back then BSD was still largely encumbered by AT&T UNIX >>> code. Otherwise GNU might have never been started as such: BSD could >>> have been the Free operating system of choice. >> >> Technically BSD was built at the University of California, Berkeley from >> UNIX System 7 source from Bell Labs (then part of AT&T). Since they >> made changes and such, the Regents of University of California held >> copyright over what was then called "Berkeley Standard Distribution" or >> BSD. Note that anyone using BSD could NOT call their OS "Unix" as they >> did NOT have permission from AT&T. > > The history is really much more complex than this. Wikipedia has a nice > graphic of how the open/commercial parts developed at > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix. But basically since the > government-regulated monopoly (AT&T) that did the initial work could not > sell it directly, they licensed it for research purposes to universities > where the original BSD additions were components that had to be > installed on top of the AT&T code. I've known Wikipedia stuff to be wrong and part of this is. In the old days, you couldn't call it "Unix" unless you had a source code license from Bell Labs (not AT&T). I know, I was involved in the negotiations our company had with BL to get System V source. They wanted, IIRC, $50K in 1982. We said "too much, guys." You could, however, get a license for BSD for a LOT less ($5k, I think), and that's what a LOT of people did (including Sun, DEC, IBM, Data General, Silicon Graphics and others too many to name). >> This is what gave rise to SunOS, >> Solaris, Ultrix, Irix, AIX, and damned near every other thing that >> sounded vaguely like Unix and had an "x" in it. They're all BSD >> derivatives and carried a license from the Regents. > > When the AT&T monopoly was sensibly split up, it was then able to > license directly to the other commercial vendors and developed its own > retail version. Subsequently the BSD contributions were incorporated > into AT&T's SysVr4 which became the base for most of the commercially > licensed versions and simultaneously the *bsd side rewrote the original > AT&T portions to have a freely distributable version. An AT&T lawsuit > against BSDI over this failed, but greatly hampered acceptance and use > of this free code at precisely the time that Linux became available and > almost worked. You probably know the rest. Yes. And SVR4.2 was the multi-processor basecode for much commercial stuff. I don't think you could use "Unix" since the copyright was still held by Bell Labs. It was later sold to another entity (can't recall the name offhand--something like "Unix System Labs") and they were just about as persnickety as you could get. Virtually no one bought their attitude and so the name Unix sorta fell out of style. Many companies DID use SVR4.2 as the base for later versions of their OSes. Sun's Solaris (SunOS 5.x) is SVR4.2-based, whereas the original SunOS (SunOS 4.x) was BSD-based. They renamed it Solaris to differentiate it from the BSD-based earlier OS. DG's later versions of their DG/UX was SVR4.2-based. The first PC-esque SVR4.2 I used was on a (blast from the past) Amiga 2000 (Motorola 68020), followed by "E-NIX" (from Everex Computers) on actual i386 hardware. DEC got so pissed off at the Unix title owner that they went to OSF/1 (Mach-based) for the Alpha products (eventually called "Tru64") and dropped BSD and SVR4.2 completely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer rps2(a)nerd.com - - Hosting Consulting, Inc. - - - - Brain: The organ with which we think that we think. - ----------------------------------------------------------------------

15 years, 11 months

Re: Docs Successes and Needs

by Bart Couvreur

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Posting this to fedora-trans too, to get some translators input Thomas Canniot schreef: > Le vendredi 05 janvier 2007 à 11:15 -0500, Paul W. Frields a écrit : >> I should have started this thread on Wednesday but my home schedule has >> been a bit topsy-turvy of late: >> >> The Docs Project has been invited to participate in the next Fedora >> Project Board meeting. We should be prepared to talk about the >> successes we've had over the past two releases and what remains to be >> done. The way I see it, here are some starter issues. I'd appreciate >> plenty of input, but please keep in mind that the issues should be >> things the Board cares about (e.g. blockers in other subprojects that we >> haven't been able to resolve after repeated attempts, resource needs >> that might require Real Funds -- things we can't provide by ourselves). >> >> Successes: >> 1. Best-in-the-world release notes, provided by the community. >> 2. Growing contributor base, including work on additional entry-level >> to intermediate-level guides. >> 3. Progress toward integrating with the Fedora package universe. >> >> Future Predictions: >> 1. Possible click-thru on Wiki will allow easier contribution without >> all the GPG+SSH+CLA+EditGroup rigamarole >> 2. FUDCon presence will result in major updates to available docs, >> making it easier for new people to learn processes >> >> Outstanding Issues: >> 1. Translation Project disconnect - what do we need here in concrete >> terms? App rewrites and process changes? Red Hat internal group(s) >> originally had ownership of this, yet we've seen no progress in the past >> months... or year(s). > > There are simple things that may be sufficient to help improving > translation. > 1. make it easy to subscribe to the project in itself. It _is_ really a > pain to open that much of account to translate a string. That shouldn't. > 2. do not allow people to commit as they want. New contributors (as well > as every pieces of translation) must be read over by someone more > experienced in the projet. A bit like extras packages are reviewed > before being accepted. This will avoid many mistakes in the > distribution. > 3. better communication between developers and translators. For > example : > a package sees its .pot file updated. That is the responsibility to > check regurlary for this kind of update. But developers could say on the > translation list : i'm going to rebuild the updated software into a RPM > package by (any date) and all translation done before that date will be > included. > > That's all I'd like :) Maybe also checkout the thread[1] on fedora-trans-list from a few weeks ago on this very subject > > >From my point of view, I don't think it could be that indispensable to > have the same webapp than Launchpad offers for translation, that is, > translation directly from the web browser. I personally don't trust any > web browser, their stability depending on the websites you are on. As far as I know Launchpad will never be an option, as it's closed source. Lately I've been wanting to look into Pootle[1], which offers some similar functionality and is written in Python. Maybe all this stuff on L10N should have it's own separate meeting with the Board, as it's such a big change/challenge to get this right. I can think of some people who would like to join that meeting then, and we should get people from Docs and Infrastructure in that meeting as well (just my 2 ct). Greetings, Bart [1]: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-trans-list/2006-November/msg00035.html [2]: http://translate.sourceforge.net/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFoLFWrbZrKtk/D5MRArMRAJ9e8wDZRv3kIrI6uGjsdjVVSSsNQACgn2Lw /AHvW6wlqCaaBzWVYxy42s8= =vqmR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

17 years, 5 months

Re: Docs Successes and Needs

by Bart Couvreur

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Posting this to fedora-trans too, to get some translators input Thomas Canniot schreef: > Le vendredi 05 janvier 2007 à 11:15 -0500, Paul W. Frields a écrit : >> I should have started this thread on Wednesday but my home schedule has >> been a bit topsy-turvy of late: >> >> The Docs Project has been invited to participate in the next Fedora >> Project Board meeting. We should be prepared to talk about the >> successes we've had over the past two releases and what remains to be >> done. The way I see it, here are some starter issues. I'd appreciate >> plenty of input, but please keep in mind that the issues should be >> things the Board cares about (e.g. blockers in other subprojects that we >> haven't been able to resolve after repeated attempts, resource needs >> that might require Real Funds -- things we can't provide by ourselves). >> >> Successes: >> 1. Best-in-the-world release notes, provided by the community. >> 2. Growing contributor base, including work on additional entry-level >> to intermediate-level guides. >> 3. Progress toward integrating with the Fedora package universe. >> >> Future Predictions: >> 1. Possible click-thru on Wiki will allow easier contribution without >> all the GPG+SSH+CLA+EditGroup rigamarole >> 2. FUDCon presence will result in major updates to available docs, >> making it easier for new people to learn processes >> >> Outstanding Issues: >> 1. Translation Project disconnect - what do we need here in concrete >> terms? App rewrites and process changes? Red Hat internal group(s) >> originally had ownership of this, yet we've seen no progress in the past >> months... or year(s). > > There are simple things that may be sufficient to help improving > translation. > 1. make it easy to subscribe to the project in itself. It _is_ really a > pain to open that much of account to translate a string. That shouldn't. > 2. do not allow people to commit as they want. New contributors (as well > as every pieces of translation) must be read over by someone more > experienced in the projet. A bit like extras packages are reviewed > before being accepted. This will avoid many mistakes in the > distribution. > 3. better communication between developers and translators. For > example : > a package sees its .pot file updated. That is the responsibility to > check regurlary for this kind of update. But developers could say on the > translation list : i'm going to rebuild the updated software into a RPM > package by (any date) and all translation done before that date will be > included. > > That's all I'd like :) Maybe also checkout the thread[1] on fedora-trans-list from a few weeks ago on this very subject > > >From my point of view, I don't think it could be that indispensable to > have the same webapp than Launchpad offers for translation, that is, > translation directly from the web browser. I personally don't trust any > web browser, their stability depending on the websites you are on. As far as I know Launchpad will never be an option, as it's closed source. Lately I've been wanting to look into Pootle[1], which offers some similar functionality and is written in Python. Maybe all this stuff on L10N should have it's own separate meeting with the Board, as it's such a big change/challenge to get this right. I can think of some people who would like to join that meeting then, and we should get people from Docs and Infrastructure in that meeting as well (just my 2 ct). Greetings, Bart [1]: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-trans-list/2006-November/msg00035.html [2]: http://translate.sourceforge.net/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFoLFWrbZrKtk/D5MRArMRAJ9e8wDZRv3kIrI6uGjsdjVVSSsNQACgn2Lw /AHvW6wlqCaaBzWVYxy42s8= =vqmR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

17 years, 5 months

jflory7 pushed to brightlight (master). "Update from upstream (#1637228)"

by notifications＠fedoraproject.org

Notification time stamped 2018-10-09 05:38:51 UTC From d5fb596cc1ade7f0904d6423cd2d7f24e9de1985 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Justin W. Flory <git(a)jwf.io> Date: Oct 09 2018 05:37:27 +0000 Subject: Update from upstream (#1637228) --- diff --git a/add-license-file.patch b/add-license-file.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bd2057c --- /dev/null +++ b/add-license-file.patch @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +From a4931af038e38f3d63123b1ffa68c8566bb43839 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: "Justin W. Flory" <git(a)jwf.io> +Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:07:12 -0400 +Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Explicitly add project license in file (helpful for RPM + packaging) + +--- + LICENSE.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++++ + README.txt | 17 +---------------- + 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) + create mode 100644 LICENSE.txt + +diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt +new file mode 100644 +index 0000000..6537fb6 +--- /dev/null ++++ b/LICENSE.txt +@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ ++Copyright (C) 2016, 2017, 2018 multiplexd <multiplexd(a)gmx.com> ++ ++Please note that from version 6 onwards brightlight has been relicenced under an ++ISC-like licence. Prior versions are under the GPL, version 2 or later. ++ ++Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose ++with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice ++and this permission notice appear in all copies. ++ ++THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH ++REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ++FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, ++INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS ++OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER ++TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF ++THIS SOFTWARE. +diff --git a/README.txt b/README.txt +index fc4b43b..f5cc6fe 100644 +--- a/README.txt ++++ b/README.txt +@@ -99,19 +99,4 @@ v7, 08/10/2018 - Bugfix release. + License + ======= + +-Copyright (C) 2016, 2017, 2018 multiplexd <multiplexd(a)gmx.com> +- +-Please note that from version 6 onwards brightlight has been relicenced under an +-ISC-like licence. Prior versions are under the GPL, version 2 or later. +- +-Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose +-with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice +-and this permission notice appear in all copies. +- +-THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH +-REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND +-FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, +-INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS +-OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER +-TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF +-THIS SOFTWARE. ++See LICENSE.txt. +-- +2.17.1 + diff --git a/brightlight.spec b/brightlight.spec index bebe4aa..efe0e3c 100644 --- a/brightlight.spec +++ b/brightlight.spec @@ -1,20 +1,22 @@ Name: brightlight -Version: 5 -Release: 4%{?dist} +Version: 7 +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: CLI tool to change screen back-light brightness -License: GPLv2+ +License: ISC URL: https://github.com/multiplexd/brightlight Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz +Patch0: add-license-file.patch + BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: libbsd-devel BuildRequires: make %description -brightlight is a program that can get and set the screen back-light brightness -on Linux systems using the kernel sysfs interface. +brightlight gets and sets the screen back-light brightness on Linux systems +using the kernel sysfs interface. %prep @@ -33,12 +35,15 @@ install -p -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} %files -%license LICENSE +%license LICENSE.txt %{_bindir}/%{name} %attr(4755, root, root) %{_bindir}/%{name} %changelog +* Tue Oct 09 2018 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 7-1 +- Upgrade to upstream major release + * Thu Jul 12 2018 Fedora Release Engineering <releng(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-4 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild @@ -47,7 +52,9 @@ install -p -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} * Thu Nov 09 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-2 - setuid to root to change back-light brightness as non-privileged user + * Tue Oct 31 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-1 - Tweak to the Makefile, contributed by Igor Gnatenko + * Sat Oct 21 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 4-1 - First brightlight package https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/brightlight/c/d5fb596cc1ade7f0904d6423...

5 years, 8 months

jflory7 pushed to brightlight (f28). "Update from upstream (#1637228)"

by notifications＠fedoraproject.org

Notification time stamped 2018-10-09 06:25:46 UTC From d5fb596cc1ade7f0904d6423cd2d7f24e9de1985 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Justin W. Flory <git(a)jwf.io> Date: Oct 09 2018 05:37:27 +0000 Subject: Update from upstream (#1637228) --- diff --git a/add-license-file.patch b/add-license-file.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bd2057c --- /dev/null +++ b/add-license-file.patch @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +From a4931af038e38f3d63123b1ffa68c8566bb43839 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: "Justin W. Flory" <git(a)jwf.io> +Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:07:12 -0400 +Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Explicitly add project license in file (helpful for RPM + packaging) + +--- + LICENSE.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++++ + README.txt | 17 +---------------- + 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) + create mode 100644 LICENSE.txt + +diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt +new file mode 100644 +index 0000000..6537fb6 +--- /dev/null ++++ b/LICENSE.txt +@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ ++Copyright (C) 2016, 2017, 2018 multiplexd <multiplexd(a)gmx.com> ++ ++Please note that from version 6 onwards brightlight has been relicenced under an ++ISC-like licence. Prior versions are under the GPL, version 2 or later. ++ ++Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose ++with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice ++and this permission notice appear in all copies. ++ ++THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH ++REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ++FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, ++INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS ++OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER ++TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF ++THIS SOFTWARE. +diff --git a/README.txt b/README.txt +index fc4b43b..f5cc6fe 100644 +--- a/README.txt ++++ b/README.txt +@@ -99,19 +99,4 @@ v7, 08/10/2018 - Bugfix release. + License + ======= + +-Copyright (C) 2016, 2017, 2018 multiplexd <multiplexd(a)gmx.com> +- +-Please note that from version 6 onwards brightlight has been relicenced under an +-ISC-like licence. Prior versions are under the GPL, version 2 or later. +- +-Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose +-with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice +-and this permission notice appear in all copies. +- +-THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH +-REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND +-FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, +-INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS +-OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER +-TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF +-THIS SOFTWARE. ++See LICENSE.txt. +-- +2.17.1 + diff --git a/brightlight.spec b/brightlight.spec index bebe4aa..efe0e3c 100644 --- a/brightlight.spec +++ b/brightlight.spec @@ -1,20 +1,22 @@ Name: brightlight -Version: 5 -Release: 4%{?dist} +Version: 7 +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: CLI tool to change screen back-light brightness -License: GPLv2+ +License: ISC URL: https://github.com/multiplexd/brightlight Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz +Patch0: add-license-file.patch + BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: libbsd-devel BuildRequires: make %description -brightlight is a program that can get and set the screen back-light brightness -on Linux systems using the kernel sysfs interface. +brightlight gets and sets the screen back-light brightness on Linux systems +using the kernel sysfs interface. %prep @@ -33,12 +35,15 @@ install -p -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} %files -%license LICENSE +%license LICENSE.txt %{_bindir}/%{name} %attr(4755, root, root) %{_bindir}/%{name} %changelog +* Tue Oct 09 2018 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 7-1 +- Upgrade to upstream major release + * Thu Jul 12 2018 Fedora Release Engineering <releng(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-4 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild @@ -47,7 +52,9 @@ install -p -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} * Thu Nov 09 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-2 - setuid to root to change back-light brightness as non-privileged user + * Tue Oct 31 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-1 - Tweak to the Makefile, contributed by Igor Gnatenko + * Sat Oct 21 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 4-1 - First brightlight package https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/brightlight/c/d5fb596cc1ade7f0904d6423...

5 years, 8 months

jflory7 pushed to brightlight (f29). "Update from upstream (#1637228)"

by notifications＠fedoraproject.org

Notification time stamped 2018-10-09 06:25:57 UTC From d5fb596cc1ade7f0904d6423cd2d7f24e9de1985 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Justin W. Flory <git(a)jwf.io> Date: Oct 09 2018 05:37:27 +0000 Subject: Update from upstream (#1637228) --- diff --git a/add-license-file.patch b/add-license-file.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bd2057c --- /dev/null +++ b/add-license-file.patch @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +From a4931af038e38f3d63123b1ffa68c8566bb43839 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: "Justin W. Flory" <git(a)jwf.io> +Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:07:12 -0400 +Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Explicitly add project license in file (helpful for RPM + packaging) + +--- + LICENSE.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++++ + README.txt | 17 +---------------- + 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) + create mode 100644 LICENSE.txt + +diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt +new file mode 100644 +index 0000000..6537fb6 +--- /dev/null ++++ b/LICENSE.txt +@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ ++Copyright (C) 2016, 2017, 2018 multiplexd <multiplexd(a)gmx.com> ++ ++Please note that from version 6 onwards brightlight has been relicenced under an ++ISC-like licence. Prior versions are under the GPL, version 2 or later. ++ ++Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose ++with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice ++and this permission notice appear in all copies. ++ ++THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH ++REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ++FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, ++INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS ++OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER ++TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF ++THIS SOFTWARE. +diff --git a/README.txt b/README.txt +index fc4b43b..f5cc6fe 100644 +--- a/README.txt ++++ b/README.txt +@@ -99,19 +99,4 @@ v7, 08/10/2018 - Bugfix release. + License + ======= + +-Copyright (C) 2016, 2017, 2018 multiplexd <multiplexd(a)gmx.com> +- +-Please note that from version 6 onwards brightlight has been relicenced under an +-ISC-like licence. Prior versions are under the GPL, version 2 or later. +- +-Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose +-with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice +-and this permission notice appear in all copies. +- +-THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH +-REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND +-FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, +-INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS +-OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER +-TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF +-THIS SOFTWARE. ++See LICENSE.txt. +-- +2.17.1 + diff --git a/brightlight.spec b/brightlight.spec index bebe4aa..efe0e3c 100644 --- a/brightlight.spec +++ b/brightlight.spec @@ -1,20 +1,22 @@ Name: brightlight -Version: 5 -Release: 4%{?dist} +Version: 7 +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: CLI tool to change screen back-light brightness -License: GPLv2+ +License: ISC URL: https://github.com/multiplexd/brightlight Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz +Patch0: add-license-file.patch + BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: libbsd-devel BuildRequires: make %description -brightlight is a program that can get and set the screen back-light brightness -on Linux systems using the kernel sysfs interface. +brightlight gets and sets the screen back-light brightness on Linux systems +using the kernel sysfs interface. %prep @@ -33,12 +35,15 @@ install -p -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} %files -%license LICENSE +%license LICENSE.txt %{_bindir}/%{name} %attr(4755, root, root) %{_bindir}/%{name} %changelog +* Tue Oct 09 2018 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 7-1 +- Upgrade to upstream major release + * Thu Jul 12 2018 Fedora Release Engineering <releng(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-4 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild @@ -47,7 +52,9 @@ install -p -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} * Thu Nov 09 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-2 - setuid to root to change back-light brightness as non-privileged user + * Tue Oct 31 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-1 - Tweak to the Makefile, contributed by Igor Gnatenko + * Sat Oct 21 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 4-1 - First brightlight package https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/brightlight/c/d5fb596cc1ade7f0904d6423...

5 years, 8 months

jflory7 pushed to brightlight (f27). "Update from upstream (#1637228)"

by notifications＠fedoraproject.org

Notification time stamped 2018-10-09 06:27:45 UTC From d5fb596cc1ade7f0904d6423cd2d7f24e9de1985 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Justin W. Flory <git(a)jwf.io> Date: Oct 09 2018 05:37:27 +0000 Subject: Update from upstream (#1637228) --- diff --git a/add-license-file.patch b/add-license-file.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bd2057c --- /dev/null +++ b/add-license-file.patch @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ +From a4931af038e38f3d63123b1ffa68c8566bb43839 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 +From: "Justin W. Flory" <git(a)jwf.io> +Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 00:07:12 -0400 +Subject: [PATCH 1/1] Explicitly add project license in file (helpful for RPM + packaging) + +--- + LICENSE.txt | 16 ++++++++++++++++ + README.txt | 17 +---------------- + 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) + create mode 100644 LICENSE.txt + +diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt +new file mode 100644 +index 0000000..6537fb6 +--- /dev/null ++++ b/LICENSE.txt +@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ ++Copyright (C) 2016, 2017, 2018 multiplexd <multiplexd(a)gmx.com> ++ ++Please note that from version 6 onwards brightlight has been relicenced under an ++ISC-like licence. Prior versions are under the GPL, version 2 or later. ++ ++Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose ++with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice ++and this permission notice appear in all copies. ++ ++THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH ++REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND ++FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, ++INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS ++OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER ++TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF ++THIS SOFTWARE. +diff --git a/README.txt b/README.txt +index fc4b43b..f5cc6fe 100644 +--- a/README.txt ++++ b/README.txt +@@ -99,19 +99,4 @@ v7, 08/10/2018 - Bugfix release. + License + ======= + +-Copyright (C) 2016, 2017, 2018 multiplexd <multiplexd(a)gmx.com> +- +-Please note that from version 6 onwards brightlight has been relicenced under an +-ISC-like licence. Prior versions are under the GPL, version 2 or later. +- +-Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose +-with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice +-and this permission notice appear in all copies. +- +-THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH +-REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND +-FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, +-INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS +-OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER +-TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF +-THIS SOFTWARE. ++See LICENSE.txt. +-- +2.17.1 + diff --git a/brightlight.spec b/brightlight.spec index bebe4aa..efe0e3c 100644 --- a/brightlight.spec +++ b/brightlight.spec @@ -1,20 +1,22 @@ Name: brightlight -Version: 5 -Release: 4%{?dist} +Version: 7 +Release: 1%{?dist} Summary: CLI tool to change screen back-light brightness -License: GPLv2+ +License: ISC URL: https://github.com/multiplexd/brightlight Source0: %{url}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz +Patch0: add-license-file.patch + BuildRequires: gcc BuildRequires: libbsd-devel BuildRequires: make %description -brightlight is a program that can get and set the screen back-light brightness -on Linux systems using the kernel sysfs interface. +brightlight gets and sets the screen back-light brightness on Linux systems +using the kernel sysfs interface. %prep @@ -33,12 +35,15 @@ install -p -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} %files -%license LICENSE +%license LICENSE.txt %{_bindir}/%{name} %attr(4755, root, root) %{_bindir}/%{name} %changelog +* Tue Oct 09 2018 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 7-1 +- Upgrade to upstream major release + * Thu Jul 12 2018 Fedora Release Engineering <releng(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-4 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild @@ -47,7 +52,9 @@ install -p -m 755 %{name} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} * Thu Nov 09 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-2 - setuid to root to change back-light brightness as non-privileged user + * Tue Oct 31 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 5-1 - Tweak to the Makefile, contributed by Igor Gnatenko + * Sat Oct 21 2017 Justin W. Flory <jwf(a)fedoraproject.org> - 4-1 - First brightlight package https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/brightlight/c/d5fb596cc1ade7f0904d6423...

5 years, 8 months

Re: ruby 1.8.7p299 is now rawhide build tree

by Mo Morsi

On 07/26/2010 03:53 PM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > Hello, all: > > As > - F14 feature freeze is tomorrow ! > - Mohammed's ruby srpm was almost complete (as far as I tried using): > http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/ruby-1.8.7.299-3.fc13.src.rpm > > I slightly modified Mohammed's srpm and imported into rawhide build tree. > Now it is available on > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=186570 > > A summary of changes from Mohammed's ruby-1.8.7.299-3.fc13: > - Some cleanups > - Make -irb, -rdoc subpackage noarch > - Make dependencies between arch-dependent subpackages isa specific > - Improve sample documentation gathering > > I hope the imported new ruby won't break things (so much). > I appreciate all peoples' contributing to ruby 187 packages. > > Regards, > Mamoru > > Thanks for this Mamoru, just went through and rebuilt your srpm, and have a couple of comments: Some rpmlint output: $ rpmlint /home/mmorsi/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ruby-1.8.7.299-4.fc13.src.rpm > ruby.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install > ruby.src: W: no-buildroot-tag Are the result of removing "BuildRoot" and "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT " as per the following guidelines, and can be ignored correct? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag > ruby.src:264: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 264, tab: line 1) You have a tab on the "-mindepth 1 \" line in the spec, this should be removed. $ rpmlint /home/mmorsi/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/ruby-1.8.7.299-4.fc13.x86_64.rpm > ruby.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-mode > ruby.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided ruby-docs In my latest spec I got around these by adding a 'Provides' for both ruby-mode / ruby-docs, where as you explicitly state "no Provides here". Is this the correct approach to do so? Eg if the emacs package provides the ruby-mode functionality, shouldn't it be that package that obsoletes and provides ruby-mode? Also since our package Obsoletes ruby-doc shouldn't it provide it as well? > ruby.x86_64: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/ruby-1.8.7.299/sample/mpart.rb ./ruby I had gotten around this by adding the following to my spec (in the section the other interpreter paths get corrected) sed -i -e 's/^#!\s*\.\/ruby/#! \/usr\/bin\/ruby/' sample/mpart.rb $ rpmlint /home/mmorsi/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/ruby-tcltk-1.8.7.299-4.fc13.x86_64.rpm > ruby-tcltk.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/tkextlib/pkg_checker.rb 0644L /usr/bin/env I got around this by removing the shebang from the top of the file like so. sed -i -e '/^#!.*/,1D' ext/tk/lib/tkextlib/pkg_checker.rb === AFAIK all the other rpmlint warnings can be ignored. Just going through the spec file itself, I'm just wondering why the complexity for the iconv stuff. Unless I missed something major, I just went through the files rpmlint was stating weren't utf-8 and ran "iconv -f iso8859-1 -t utf-8" on them to take care of the issue. No need for any sed'ing. Did I oversimplify the issue? Also I can't help but feel that we should put some of this stuff in the source %prep section, not in the %install section, and would be interested in seeing what (if anything) the guidelines say about this. Regardless these last couple are not big issues, I wouldn't have a problem with the Ruby rpms going in without them being resolved. BTW I tested this latest RPM in a VM and am happy to say via some light surface testing: rake, rack, rails, rspec, and gem work out of the box, and the puppet, rails, and deltacloud test/spec suites work in the same manner as they do against 1.8.6. We should be good to go for F14, though I don't think we'll pass through 100% unscathed. There might be a few bug reports against some specific gems, but the major ones (and I'm guessing most others) should work fine and what doesn't can be taken on a case-by-case basis as they will need to be anyway. Once again, thanks for the updated rpms and reviews. -Mo

13 years, 10 months

Re: Anitya (release-monitoring.org) 1.0.0 available

by Vít Ondruch

Recently, I have started to receive notifications such as the one in attachment and I wonder what is their purpose? They don't provide any meaningful information starting by the "fedmsg notification" subject. Vít Dne 22. 01. 21 v 10:56 Michal Konecny napsal(a): > Hi everyone, > > today I deployed a new version of Anitya on production [0]. I decided > that Anitya is mature enough to have version 1.0.0. So here it is. > > And what this versions brings? Plenty of changes, here is the list of > the most interesting ones: > > * Add preview mode > Now you can try your changes before submitting them, on the edit and > add project page is a new button "Test check" which will take the > fields from the form and do a check for releases above them. Nothing > is changed in the database during test check. > > * Flag pre-release versions > Yes, you are reading it right. Anitya is now flagging versions that > are considered unstable, it uses the version scheme recognition and > above that you can add your own filter when editing project. > > * Message schema 2.0.0 > The Anitya message schema now contains a new topic > "anitya.project.version.update.v2". This topic will send message that > has "upstream_versions" field which contains all the newly found > versions, not only the latest one. And it also contains a > "stable_versions" field, so you can look if some of the newly versions > is stable or not. With this version "anitya.project.version.update" is > now deprecated! > > * Add version filter for project > Anitya now allows user to add their own version filter, if you see any > bogus version, you can just edit project and add the string to filter > (This will not delete any version that was already retrieved, but you > can flag a project and ask admin to do it for you and it will never be > retrieved again). > > * Project archiving > Anitya 1.0.0 allows admins to archive projects if it seems reasonable > (project dead upstream) for the sake of history. Archived projects > can't be edited and are not checked for new versions, but still could > be found in Anitya. > > * Projects menu is rewritten > The projects menu now contains items that are more sensible to current > state of Anitya, you can see projects that were successfully updated > (sorted by the time of update from newest), failed to update (sorted > by the number of failed attempts from highest number), never updated > (incorrectly set up projects, where update was never successful, > sorted by the date of creation from oldest) and archived projects. > > * Updated documentation > The documentation was fully rewritten to reflect the current state of > Anitya. User guide was added containing use cases that could be done > by user. User admin guide was added for users in Anitya with Admin > rights. And the Admin guide and Contribution guide was verified that > these steps are working with current version of Anitya. > > If you want to see whole list of changes, see Anitya 1.0.0 release on > GitHub [1]. > > I hope this release will bring joy to your life and solve at least > some of the pain points people had with Anitya. > > > Michal > Mage from release-monitoring.org > > P.S.: If you want to try something in Anitya without the fear of > breaking anything, you can try it on staging instance [2]. > > [0] - https://release-monitoring.org/ > [1] - https://github.com/fedora-infra/anitya/releases/tag/1.0.0 > [2] - https://stg.release-monitoring.org/ > _______________________________________________ > infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to > infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@lists.fedora...

3 years, 4 months

[Bug 578290] Review Request: mj - Mah-Jong program with network option

by 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=578290 --- Comment #4 from Klaus Grue <grue(a)diku.dk> 2010-04-10 02:47:17 EDT --- Here is the pre-review. It is my first pre-review. M. Tasaka has promised to take a look at it. There are quite a number of open points in it where I don't know what to do. I have built the source RPM for x86_64 and i386. Running rpmlint on the binary packages causes no complaints. Below I go through http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines step by step (rather mechanical - sorry - but I hope that is a reasonable way to start). Below, "you" means "the packager". For each comment I make below I have added one of the following attributes after the comment: ACTION The packager must do or say something QUESTION I am in doubt what to do here OK Selfexplanatory MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. > I should mention that if you run rpmlint on the SRPM, > you will get several warnings about spelling errors > in the Swedish description, referring to words from > the English description. From what I can tell, this > is because of some bug in rpm, see bug 578299. I only get two erros from rpmlint: > mj.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install > You should clean $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in the %clean > section and in the beginning of the %install section. > Use "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT". Some rpm configurations > do this automatically; if your package is only going > to be built in such configurations, you can ignore > this warning for the section(s) where your rpm > takes care of it. > mj.src: W: no-buildroot-tag > The BuildRoot tag isn't used in your spec. It must > be used in order to allow building the package as > non root on some systems. For some rpm versions (e.g. > rpm.org >= 4.6) the BuildRoot tag is not necessary > in specfiles and is ignored by rpmbuild; if your > package is only going to be built with such rpm > versions you can ignore this warning. Could you take a look at that? [[NOTE: "you" means the packager in the line above, i.e. Göran Uddeborg, not Mamoru Tasaka]] ACTION MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Naming guidelines are met. But 'mj' is a *very* short name. There are only 26^2=676 package names which consist of two, small letters, so I suppose such names are reserved. The name matches the upstream tar-ball (mj-1.10-src.tar.gz). Do you think upstream would be willing to change name to e.g. mahjong-1.10 or mahjongg-1.10? Those names do not appear to be taken yet. In particular, /usr/bin/mahjongg belongs to gnome-games-2.26.3-1.fc11.x86_64. ACTION MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. The application is written in C but uses neither $RPM_OPT_FLAGS nor %{optflags} ACTION http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop-file-install_u... says that one should use desktop-file-install (mj.spec does that) and should also BuildRequire desktop-file-utils (mj.spec doesn't) ACTION http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_ov... says that you should use %global instead of %define, unless you really need only locally defined submacros within other macro definitions (a very rare case). mj.spec contains two instances of %define. Is that needed? ACTION Consider using cp -p ../tiles-v1/tong* . rather than cp ../tiles-v1/tong* . c.f. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps ACTION MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. License in upstream tar file: > The programs are distributed under the GNU General > Public License, version 2, or at your discretion > any later version. Part of the upstream tar file, however, is non-GNU. The mj.spec file says: # The bundled tiles have a non-commercial-use license. So instead we # use GPL tiles from kdegames instead. The solution was suggested by # Tom 'spot' Callaway in: # http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2010-February/001109.html As mentioned in tiles-v1/README it is questionable whether or not the bundled tiles have a non-commercial-use license. Thus it is questionable whether or not the tiles can be GNU GPL. Tom 'spot' Callaway says the tiles are not GNU GPL. Using GPL tiles from kdegames as indicated above seems like a good idea. That guarantees that the tiles used are GPL. But then I suppose the tiles-v1/ directory should be removed from the source package since otherwise the source package will contain tiles which are not GNU GPL. ACTION The upstream .c and .h files refer to the LICENSE file for license information except lazyfixed.c, lazyfixed.h, vlazyfixed.c, and vlazyfixed.h which refer to GNU Lesser General Public License (any version). Is that a problem? QUESTION In upstream .c and .h files, the author claims moral rights. Does that have any effect? I found something here: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/contributor_agreement.jsp#r_3 3. Q: The SCA requires that I agree not to assert my "moral rights." What are moral rights? A: Moral rights are additional rights of the creators of copyrighted works recognized in some jurisdictions, and intended to protect the relationship between an artist and his or her work. These rights remain in place even after ownership of the work is shared or transferred. Moral rights typically only apply to visual or artistic works, and not to utilitarian works such as software. They may prohibit the alteration or mutilation of a work, may protect the author's right of attribution or anonymous publication, and in general govern the artistic integrity of a creative work. It would be unusual for moral rights to apply to an open-source contribution, but in the event they do and you live in a jurisdiction that recognizes moral rights, when you sign the SCA you agree not to assert them with respect to your contributions. QUESTION MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Spec file license: > License: GPLv2+ OK MUST: 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. File LICENSE is included in %doc OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. It is. Description and summary are provided in Swedish also. The Swedish description and summary matches the American English ones. OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. It is. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. Downloaded from http://mahjong.julianbradfield.org/Source/mj-1.10-src.tar.gz: f9bacf9fd6743d5e3a2fd86863607ce2 mj-1.10-src.tar.gz In source rpm: f9bacf9fd6743d5e3a2fd86863607ce2 mj-1.10-src.tar.gz OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Compiles and builds successfully for fc11/x86_64 and fc11/i586. OK MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. I am unable to test PPC. What shall I do? QUESTION MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Must be OK since it builds in a chroot jail using mock. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. The spec file does not handle locales at all. OK MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. The RPM package defines no shared libraries. OK MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [12] %prep replaces non-GNU-GPL tiles with tiles found at /usr/share/kde4/apps/kmahjongglib/tilesets/default.svgz Apart from that, /usr is neither hardcoded in mj.spec nor in the Makefiles. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. The package uses these directories without creating them: Directory Owner /usr/bin/ filesystem-2.4.21-1.fc11.x86_64 /usr/share/applications/ filesystem-2.4.21-1.fc11.x86_64 /usr/share/doc/ filesystem-2.4.21-1.fc11.x86_64 /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/ hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch /usr/share/man/man1/ policycoreutils-2.0.62-12.14.fc11.x86_64 How can I find out if one needs to require hicolor-icon-theme-0.10-6.noarch and policycoreutils-2.0.62-12.14.fc11.x86_64 ? QUESTION MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. rpm -qlv mj -rwxr-xr-x root root /usr/bin/mj-player -rwxr-xr-x root root /usr/bin/mj-server -rwxr-xr-x root root /usr/bin/xmj -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/applications/mj.desktop drwxr-xr-x root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10 -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/CHANGES -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/ChangeLog -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/LICENCE -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/README -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/rules.txt -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/doc/mj-1.10/use.txt -rw-r--r-- root root /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps/mj.png -r--r--r-- root root /usr/share/man/man1/mj-player.1.gz -r--r--r-- root root /usr/share/man/man1/mj-server.1.gz -r--r--r-- root root /usr/share/man/man1/xmj.1.gz Why are man pages not user writable? ACTION MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. As far as I can see, mj.spec uses macros consistently. Is that what is asked for here? Is there something particular to look for? Is this a question of using either $RPM_OPT_FLAGS or %{optflags}? In that case, mj.spec uses the %{optflags} style consistently and '$RPM' does not occur anywhere in mj.spec. QUESTION MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). Documentation consists of 25653 bytes rules.txt 41244 bytes use.txt 22311 bytes xmj.1.gz OK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. The package installs no .h files. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. The package installs no static libraries. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. The package installs no .so files. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. OK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). It does not. As mentioned previously, rpmlint complains about it. ACTION MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. The source package has a LICENSE file. The LICENSE file contains license info followed by the GNU GPL license. OK SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. Description and summary is available in English and Swedish. The Mahjong program itself seems to support English only. OK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Done for x86_64 and i386. OK SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. I cannot test PPC. QUESTION SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. The x86_64 version seems to run fine. OK SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. OK SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. There are no subpackages. OK SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. There are no such files. OK SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. The package only BuildRequire packages. OK SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Man pages are included for all three binaries (xmj, mj-player, and mj-server). OK -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 2 months

Search results for query "contribute to wiki"