Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:21:52PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. And just to be clear for people who search the mailing list archives later: * If the licensing is okay, the source tarball doesn't need to be repacked with those files excluded. * The binaries (for a definition of binaries that includes code/executable content but not necessarily data) do need to be removed from the build environment in the %prep stage of the rpm build. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-built_binaries_or_libraries -Toshio pgpb444lkazcA.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
That really should be a releng ticket not an infrastructure one. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:46:03 -0500 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Please file an infrastructure ticket (for tracking/logging purposes) and we can get it removed. kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9d7QkACgkQkSxm47BaWffvXQCdEKN9d0P8pl+UKPRiTRNUDoPc Rj8AmQGNcKVwqVkMX4C82RCw1t8qyO0E =/9AT -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:47:36 -0500, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote: That really should be a releng ticket not an infrastructure one. I have filed the following ticket for this issue: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5124 Thanks. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9d7QkACgkQkSxm47BaWffvXQCdEKN9d0P8pl+UKPRiTRNUDoPc Rj8AmQGNcKVwqVkMX4C82RCw1t8qyO0E =/9AT -END PGP SIGNATURE- And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk9d7QkACgkQkSxm47BaWffvXQCdEKN9d0P8pl+UKPRiTRNUDoPc Rj8AmQGNcKVwqVkMX4C82RCw1t8qyO0E =/9AT -END PGP SIGNATURE- And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. -J -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:21:52 -0500, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. Does that cover GPL binaries where we are sure we have the specific source versions that correspond to the binaries? For example pdf files, which I suspect might have been created from odt files, but I am not sure I can get the versions of the odt files that match the included pdf files? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:21 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto: On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. -J So for something that is, say CC-BY-NonCommercial, it would be okay to ship in the SRPM but not in the RPM? -- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:21 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto: On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote: On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply. Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. -J So for something that is, say CC-BY-NonCommercial, it would be okay to ship in the SRPM but not in the RPM? Neither, actually. See Bad Licences. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses -J -- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:21:52 -0500, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those? If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes. Does that cover GPL binaries where we are sure we have the specific source versions that correspond to the binaries? For example pdf files, which I suspect might have been created from odt files, but I am not sure I can get the versions of the odt files that match the included pdf files? IANAL but I would call the odt source code and the pdf binary but just use the term documentation for either. It is not a binary in the sense of compiled code. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 18:53:16 +0100, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: IANAL but I would call the odt source code and the pdf binary but just use the term documentation for either. It is not a binary in the sense of compiled code. The GPL requires you to to provide the preferred source code for doing updates. So for PDFs generated from some other source (as opposed directly with a pdf editor) one is arguably required to provide that other source when distrubuting GPL licensed PDFs. (IMO the GPL doesn't really make a good documentation or artwork license.) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Non-free tarball checked in
I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Non-free tarball checked in
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:46:03 -0500 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68. Please file an infrastructure ticket (for tracking/logging purposes) and we can get it removed. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
