[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797 Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||CURRENTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797 Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #19 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com 2009-02-16 05:37:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18) APPROVED; just fix up the release to an integer = 1 when you check in. I've changed that in the SRPM I intend to import. Thanks for reviewing! New Package CVS Request === Package Name: gimp-data-extras Short Description: Extra files for GIMP Owners: nphilipp Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797 Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #20 from Kevin Fenzi ke...@tummy.com 2009-02-16 16:29:15 EDT --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797 --- Comment #17 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com 2009-02-13 10:11:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) I've checked with upstream and they told me I should consider it as GPLv2+. [...] I can attach an IRC log snippet if necessary. Can you include that in the package? I checked with spot and he indicated that this is OK as long as you're reasonably certain that the person you were communicating with is the copyright holder. Obviously it will be academic once a version is out, but until then we have to clarify the license. I've included it as license-clarification.txt in the package and it gets installed along with the other documentation. New files: Spec file: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/gimp-data-extras.spec SRPM file: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/gimp-data-extras-2.0.2-0.3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-13 12:34:29 EDT --- Looks good, thanks. APPROVED; just fix up the release to an integer = 1 when you check in. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797 --- Comment #16 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-12 15:51:30 EDT --- I thought I had commented on this already, but it seems not. Drat. I've added this workaround. And the package indeed builds fine. Uh, that's because I'm a stickler for eye-pleasing and I wanted to reserve the -1 release for the version to import into Fedora CVS. I admit to not really understanding why anyone would care, but as long as what gets checked in is correct then I don't see a problem. I've checked with upstream and they told me I should consider it as GPLv2+. [...] I can attach an IRC log snippet if necessary. Can you include that in the package? I checked with spot and he indicated that this is OK as long as you're reasonably certain that the person you were communicating with is the copyright holder. Obviously it will be academic once a version is out, but until then we have to clarify the license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797
--- Comment #15 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com 2009-02-09 07:09:29
EDT ---
Sorry for the delay...
(In reply to comment #13)
I can verify that this does indeed build fine with the first line changed to
%define gimpdatadir %(%{_bindir}/gimptool --gimpdatadir || echo blah)
Everything that follows assumes that a similar change has been made.
I've added this workaround.
However, I guess it's worth asking what that dependency does that the regular
dependency on gimp doesn't do. We really try to avoid file dependencies out
of
a few specific directories because they require the users to download
additional large hunks of metadata.
Agreed. The package now requires gimp = 2:2.0 and I've dropped the dependency
on the directory.
Why is the release 1? It doesn't seem to me that the 2.0.2 tarball upstream
is any kind of prerelease.
Uh, that's because I'm a stickler for eye-pleasing and I wanted to reserve the
-1 release for the version to import into Fedora CVS.
Unfortunately I can't find any statement of the license version in use.
COPYING is simply v2 of the GPL, which has the usual language about being able
to use any version if the program itself doesn't specify one. That would
indicate that GPL+ is the appropriate license tag, but it would be a good idea
to clarify with upstream because I don't think that's what they intend.
I've checked with upstream and they told me I should consider it as GPLv2+.
There's a new version in the works which will hopefully clearly mention the
license directly in the archive.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
31f9b40822646729be9ff50856e803a59290c119c600a8fdab4b669c4ccf2c1f
gimp-data-extras-2.0.2.tar.bz2
X does not meet versioning guidelines.
OK if I bump it to -1 prior to importing? That leaves us -0.x for review
work
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
? license field matches the actual license.
I can attach an IRC log snippet if necessary.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
final provides and requires:
gimp-data-extras = 2.0.2-0.1.fc11
=
? /usr/share/gimp/2.0
gimp
Resolved by directly requiring gimp = 2:2.0 I think...
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* acceptable content
New files:
Spec file: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/gimp-data-extras.spec
SRPM file:
http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/gimp-data-extras-2.0.2-0.2.fc10.src.rpm
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797 --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-02-06 19:24:45 EDT --- Any response to my review commentary? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797 --- Comment #11 from Nils Philippsen nphil...@redhat.com 2008-12-19 05:42:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) I'm a bit confused; is this a review ticket for bringing gimp-data-extras back into the distro? Yes. Originally it was a merge review ticket, but as of the unclear ownership of some of the files contained in the old versions, the package was dropped. When upstream published a fixed version, I reopened the ticket to get the package get back in. It's lost in the sea of merge reviews so nobody has looked at it in ages. Koji says that gimp-data-extras has been blocked from the distro since F-7. Due to legal reasons, but these have been resolved in the meantime. If this really does need a review, please let me know. I'd appreciate a review ;-). But I also note that the links in comment 8 above are invalid (which isn't surprising, 13 months later). I've rebuilt the source RPM and uploaded the files to: Spec: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/gimp-data-extras.spec SRPM: http://nphilipp.fedorapeople.org/review/gimp-data-extras-2.0.2-0.1.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2008-12-19 14:58:50 EDT --- I'm not really the best person to do this because I know zilch about gimp, but the package seems simple enough. Unfortunately, it doesn't build for me in mock, nor in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1010055 The problem is that gimptool isn't available when the srpm is first evaluated to extract the build dependencies, so the call fails (which is OK) but then that leaves the macro empty and the resulting spec is not syntactically correct. What we usually do is tack on || echo blah so that the result has something in it, the resulting spec has correct syntax, and the final package, which is built with all of the build dependencies installed, has the correct value. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797
--- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2008-12-19 17:01:14
EDT ---
I can verify that this does indeed build fine with the first line changed to
%define gimpdatadir %(%{_bindir}/gimptool --gimpdatadir || echo blah)
Everything that follows assumes that a similar change has been made.
However, I guess it's worth asking what that dependency does that the regular
dependency on gimp doesn't do. We really try to avoid file dependencies out of
a few specific directories because they require the users to download
additional large hunks of metadata.
Why is the release 1? It doesn't seem to me that the 2.0.2 tarball upstream
is any kind of prerelease.
Unfortunately I can't find any statement of the license version in use.
COPYING is simply v2 of the GPL, which has the usual language about being able
to use any version if the program itself doesn't specify one. That would
indicate that GPL+ is the appropriate license tag, but it would be a good idea
to clarify with upstream because I don't think that's what they intend.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
31f9b40822646729be9ff50856e803a59290c119c600a8fdab4b669c4ccf2c1f
gimp-data-extras-2.0.2.tar.bz2
X does not meet versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
? license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
final provides and requires:
gimp-data-extras = 2.0.2-0.1.fc11
=
? /usr/share/gimp/2.0
gimp
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* acceptable content
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
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=225797 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ti...@math.uh.edu --- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2008-12-19 01:35:40 EDT --- I'm a bit confused; is this a review ticket for bringing gimp-data-extras back into the distro? It's lost in the sea of merge reviews so nobody has looked at it in ages. Koji says that gimp-data-extras has been blocked from the distro since F-7. If this really does need a review, please let me know. But I also note that the links in comment 8 above are invalid (which isn't surprising, 13 months later). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 225797] Review Request: gimp-data-extras
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gimp-data-extras https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225797 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Merge Review: gimp-data-|Review Request: gimp-data- |extras |extras --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-12-04 04:53 EST --- Changing the summary to clarify that this is not about a package already in the repo. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
