[Bug 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
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: perl-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-31 20:59 EST --- Imported into CVS, branches created, and built. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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
[Bug 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
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: perl-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-12-27 16:58 EST --- I almost forgot about it too. * source files match upstream: b0cbdf1397f1a16ad6e34a39bbb12382 Perl6-Bible-0.30.tar.gz * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text not included upstream, but appropriate clarification is included in the package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none needed) * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: perl(Perl6::Bible) perl-Perl6-Bible = 0.30-2.fc7 = /usr/bin/perl perl = 0:5.000 perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.8.8) perl(File::Spec) perl(Perl6::Bible) perl(strict) perl(warnings) * %check is present and all tests pass: All tests successful. Files=2, Tests=2, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.03 cusr + 0.03 csys = 0.06 CPU) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * This is mostly content, not code, but it is permissible content (package documentation) * This is pretty much all documentation; a -docs subpackage would be kind of dumb. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. (Most of the content is not marked %doc, as then the package would indeed be useless.) APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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
[Bug 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
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: perl-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-12 01:22 EST --- This all looks good; can you cut a new package with that information included (as a README.licensing file or something) and I'll do a quick review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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
[Bug 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
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: perl-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-11-02 20:25 EST --- Apparently my first mail was incorrectly addressed, and gmail's spam filter ate the second one, but TPF President Bill Odom eventually noticed it and gave me this answer: Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:13:01 -0600 From: Bill Odom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Steven Pritchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: documentation license question In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Steve: Okay, here's the definitive word from Allison, who's been immersed in the legal and licensing side for far longer than any one person should ever have to be: On 10/31/06, Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Perl 6 Bible is the Apocalypses, Exegeses, and Synopses. ... They'll be under the same terms as the production release of Perl 6, which is: - they are covered by the author's contributor agreement to TPF - the compilation copyright is owned by TPF - authors retain their individual copyright in individual pieces - Artistic 2.0 license Does that give you what you need, or should I do some more digging? Thanks, Bill -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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
[Bug 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
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: perl-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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
[Bug 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
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: perl-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-19 12:28 EST --- So here's the answer that I got from the maintainer on #perl6: audreyt silug: as far as I know they are never really licensed audreyt and nominally I think TPF owns copyright, but I'm not sure I've sent email to the President of TPF to see if he has any suggestions. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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
[Bug 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
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: perl-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-17 14:54 EST --- (In reply to comment #1) This is an odd package; it's a Perl module, but it's really all documentation except for the tiny viewer script. I'm inclined to just treat it as any other perl module but it does seem a bit strange. It seemed to make sense to work on getting this in along with parrot and pugs for anyone who wanted to work on Perl 6. More troubling is this: This Copyright applies only to the Perl6::Bible Perl software distribution, not the documents bundled within. and the documents within all seem to lack any kind of copyright information. I hadn't noticed that, but I'm sure that was just a clarification of the copyright on the package, not a statement about the license. Given that those documents are *the* formal specification and documentation for Perl 6, I'll be very surprised if they aren't covered by the usual GPL/Artistic dual license. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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
[Bug 197754] Review Request: perl-Perl6-Bible
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: perl-Perl6-Bible https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197754 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-16 13:03 EST --- This is an odd package; it's a Perl module, but it's really all documentation except for the tiny viewer script. I'm inclined to just treat it as any other perl module but it does seem a bit strange. More troubling is this: This Copyright applies only to the Perl6::Bible Perl software distribution, not the documents bundled within. and the documents within all seem to lack any kind of copyright information. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/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
