[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #21 from Bug Zapper fedora-triage-l...@redhat.com 2009-11-18 06:00:12 EDT --- This message is a reminder that Fedora 10 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 10. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '10'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 10's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 10 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed: What|Removed |Added Version|10 |rawhide --- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-11-18 10:13:59 EDT --- (Changing the version to rawhide) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||or...@cora.nwra.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|or...@cora.nwra.com Flag||fedora-review? --- Comment #20 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com 2009-10-29 17:56:45 EDT --- I'll take the review. First comments: Let's change all the %define statements to %global. I'm a little leery about the defaults if pkg-config emacs doesn't work. What's the motivation? Perhaps other conditionals would be more appropriate? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #19 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-07-18 22:41:21 EDT --- Dan Kelley released a new gri with GPLv3+ licence: SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-2.12.19-1.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-2.12.19-1.fc10.src.rpm Changelog: * Sun Jul 19 2009 D Haley mycae(a!t)yahoo.com 2.12.19-1 - Update to gri-2.12.19 Koji: F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1484728 F11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1484723 Rpmlint: $ rpmlint -i gri.spec ../SRPMS/gri-2.12.19-1.fc10.src.rpm ../RPMS/i386/gri-*19-1.fc10* ../RPMS/i386/*-gri-*19-1.fc10* sudo rpm -e gri sudo rpm -i ../RPMS/i386/gri-2.12.19-1.fc10.i386.rpm rpmlint gri emacs-gri.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. emacs-gri-el.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. xemacs-gri.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. xemacs-gri-el.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [sudo] password for makerpm: 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #18 from Dan Kelley kelley@gmail.com 2009-07-15 08:27:47 EDT --- Thanks very much for the script. I've used it and committed the results to CVS. (The patch didn't work.) I do not have access to a machine with rpmlint, so I can't test whether things are better now, but I hope so! PS. my debian pal will probably be back in a week or so, so that sets a timescale for any possible tarball release ... we're in CVS land until then. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #14 from Dan Kelley kelley@gmail.com 2009-07-14 06:48:04 EDT --- Do I infer correctly, from the comments of D Haley, that declaring it GPLv2+ in a few spots can let me make the change without altering each and every source file? That would be wonderful, because altering the source files has a bit of a negative effect. (The modification date is a useful thing, in indicating at a glance which parts of a code have been reworked, and which worked from the start. I'm a scientist, and I trust 1960s fortran subroutines more than months-old c++.) I would love to get a clear statement on what I should do. I am hoping, from D Haley's comment, that I may satisfy Fedora's needs by modifying just a few files ... but which ones? (I have modified my gri.spec, but I don't know if that's being used by Fedora, actually.) PS. I know I'm being a nuisance on this, but I do think it is better for me to use my time on the code, rather than on reading documents about licenses. PPS. Gri is quit old, which explains why I say GPL in some places ... that's all there was, once upon a time! Dan -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #15 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-07-14 12:39:03 EDT --- Hi Dan, I do think it is better for me to use my time on the code, rather than on reading documents about licenses. Fair enough. So I have put together a quick and dirty script to make life a little easier: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-relic.tar.gz The script allows you to choose from GPL2,GPL2+,GPL3 or GPL3+, and will modify the source files, without changing the timestamps (Not sure this is a 100% good idea. This may affect cvs behaviour, you will have to force a commit of all .cc and .hh files with the -f flag, see CVS manpage). It replaces the COPYING file and license.txt I also include a quick GPL intro as a printf statment in gri.cc, as well as modifying the README-linux-redhat and README-SunOS5 files, depending upon licence version. I don't touch the .el file -- you may need to ask your co-author about that licence and modify (just change the GPL version number in the .el file). The patches apply cleanly to the release version, not the CVS. But the patches are only very minor. Changes should be obvious from looking at them. To use the script, untar it into your gri folder $tar -zxvf PATH_TO/gri-relic.tar.gz $./relic/gri-license.sh Each time you run the script it will prepend the GPL boilerplate, so take care only to run it once :) As always please check the script to make sure I am not doing anything particularly stupid that may damage your build or system. As I have limited time at the moment, I have not tested this very much, so your mileage will vary. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #16 from Dan Kelley kelley@gmail.com 2009-07-14 12:59:02 EDT --- I think I've done most of this, in the CVS. My remaining question is whether it is mandatory that I include the license in the cc and hh files. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #17 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-07-14 20:46:01 EDT --- My remaining question is whether it is mandatory that I include the license in the cc and hh files. Yes, it is part of the licensing -- if you are worried about timestamps, the script may help... -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 Dan Kelley kelley@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kelley@gmail.com Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #10 from Dan Kelley kelley@gmail.com 2009-07-13 13:49:10 EDT --- As the author of gri, I would be happy to add licensing text as required to my source (and other) files. Actually, I was surprised to hear of this issue today, since Debian (which is keen on licenses) accepted Gri quite a long time ago. It would be very helpful if someone could suggest a URL that gave me clear instructions for a license that would satisfy both Fedora and Debian. My guess is that I share with other developers a neutral opinion regarding the choices of license. All I want is to share my labour. Dan. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo? | --- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-07-13 14:05:33 EDT --- Please note that there isn't any question of whether the license is acceptable. The question is whether it's restricted to GPLv2 only or whether it's GPLv2 or later. This is important because it is not uncommon these days for packages to relicense to GPLv3+ (for example, this just happened with libreadline) and we need to know at a glance whether this is an issue for a particular program. We get the Debian didn't care argument pretty often, but the simple fact is that Fedora cares more about this kind of thing. We're just paying attention to details here. Since there's doubt, it seems safer to assume that the bulk of the software is GPLv2 only and cannot be linked against GPLv3 code, but if that's not what you intend then please do feel free to clarify. The GPL itself tells you how to be completely clear about this, by putting proper license blocks in each source file and using well-defined terminology when referring to the license. This information is down near the end of the GPL text, at How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #12 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-07-13 20:50:26 EDT --- Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, please read the upstream bug at the gri tracker: http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailatid=105511aid=2820229group_id=5511 The developer (Dan) has stated that he is keen to help us, but my interpretation of the situation is that Dan is not certain about the best licence to use to satisfy both Debian and Fedora needs, and what needs to be done once the author has chosen a licence. I would tentatively suggest that GPLv2+ (GPL version 2 or any later) would be the best option, as this allows both debian and fedora to use the author's work, and makes packaging a breeze, if the author wants to relicence. If not, GPLv2 is OK, but this also needs to be listed in the source code boiler-plate, as specified in the how to. Using GPLv2 makes packaging a little bit harder, as we cannot link to GPLv3 code. This information is down near the end of the GPL text, at How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs. As you say, All that needs to happen is the source files need to comply with the GPL how-to (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html) -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-07-13 22:54:08 EDT --- And I just want to reiterate that the issue is not finding a license which satisfies Fedora, because either of the possibilities satisfies Fedora just fine. Fedora only asks for clarification. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #9 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-07-12 01:16:02 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-3.spec SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-2.12.18-3.fc10.src.rpm Koji builds: F10: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1468583 F11: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1468584 RPMLint: == $ rpmlint -i gri.spec ../SRPMS/gri-2.12.18-3.fc10.src.rpm ../RPMS/i386/gri-*3.fc10* ../RPMS/i386/*-gri*3.fc10* sudo rpm -e gri sudo rpm -i ../RPMS/i386/gri-2.12.18-3.fc10.i386.rpm rpmlint gri emacs-gri.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. emacs-gri-el.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. xemacs-gri.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. xemacs-gri-el.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. [sudo] password for makerpm: ^[[A^[[A^[[B1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. == Well, for some definition of soon. I don't think we are on a tight schedule :) Your manual Requires: readline should be unnecessary. rpm correctly finds the dependency on libreadline. Fixed I note you're not using the %dist tag on this pacakge. It's not mandatory, but I do need to ask if you understand the issues that occur when you don't use it and the procedure for making sure that you keep proper ordering between release branches. This was the out-of-date spec bit. I must have forgotten to rebuild before uploading. Anyway, this is therefore no longer an issue. The package includes a test suite in doc/tst_suite; is there any reason not to run it in a %check section? Their test suite doesn't actually have any kind of test target, in contradiction to what is stated in the manual (http://gri.sourceforge.net/gridoc/html/TestSuite.html). The manual says one exists and can be invoked with make test, but make test is not a valid target for any makefile. There is no clear way to verify the functioning of their test suite in an automated fashion, AFAIK. $ for i in `find ./ -name Makefile`; do pushd . ; cd $(dirname $i); make test; popd; done ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 make: *** No rule to make target `test'. Stop. ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/gri-2.12.18 gri.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs Fixed. This package in general seems to be a bit lax about the license version in use. Submitted upstream as a bug (https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detailaid=2820229group_id=5511atid=105511) Actually I am going to revert the package licence back to GPLv2. The licence on their site, and in their docs is GPLv2. (http://gri.sourceforge.net/gridoc/html/License.html and doc/gri.texi) GPLv2+ gives you the option of using a later version, or GPLv2. Therefore, mixing this with the GPLv2+ el files, means that the package as a whole must be distributed under 2 only, as far as I can see. Your scriptlets should conform to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo unless you have some reason why that doesn't work. Fixed. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-07-10 20:29:33 EDT --- Well, for some definition of soon. My time available for reviews comes infrequently and at random intervals. Anyway, I do have some time now. So, some questions and comments: The spec file on your web site seems to be out of date compared to what's in the src.rpm in comment 4. My understanding is that the emacs files work for both emacs and xemacs. Did you also intend to provide an xemacs package? (I know the emacs/xemacs thing is rather insane, but that's just the way it is. If you package for one and not the other, you can probably expect some bug reports about it.) Yes, that means four packages with one file apiece and another block of macros. If you only intend to build for Fedora, you can make them noarch, though. The package includes a test suite in doc/tst_suite; is there any reason not to run it in a %check section? Note that the emacs files are GPLv2+, not GPLv2. The source code actually contradicts the README file here. This package in general seems to be a bit lax about the license version in use. (license.txt doesn't specify a version, README does but says v2 only for the emacs mode while gri-mode.el explicitly says v2+.) Always trust what's in the source code, but do ask upstream to be clearer about whether they intended GPLv2 only or GPLv2+. rpmlint says: gri.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 92, tab: line 28) I don't particularly care; fix this if you like. emacs-gri.x86_64: W: no-documentation emacs-gri-el.x86_64: W: no-documentation These are fine. I note you're not using the %dist tag on this pacakge. It's not mandatory, but I do need to ask if you understand the issues that occur when you don't use it and the procedure for making sure that you keep proper ordering between release branches. Your manual Requires: readline should be unnecessary. rpm correctly finds the dependency on libreadline. Your scriptlets should conform to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Texinfo unless you have some reason why that doesn't work. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||505154 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #6 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-06-04 19:56:23 EDT --- That build looked OK to me, am I missing something, or were you referring to my other package: Bug 481355 ? -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-06-04 20:12:33 EDT --- Weird; it does look OK. I can't really explain what happened; I guess I shouldn't do builds late at night. Please accept my apologies; I'll try to look at this soon. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu 2009-06-04 00:21:27 EDT --- This fails to build. Here's a scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1392985 -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386
--- Comment #3 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-02-10 04:06:40 EDT ---
SPEC URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-2.spec
SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-2.12.18-2.src.rpm
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/gri-2.12.18-2.fc10.src.rpm
../RPMS/i386/gri-2.12.18-2.fc10.i386.rpm gri.spec
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Koji Build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1116786
Changelog:
* Tue Feb 10 2009 D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2.12.18-2
- Cleared many old changelog entries by D, Kelly T Powers (year=2005)
- Drop readline buildreq.
- Fix lic. GPLv2 to GPLv2+
- Create emacs subpackages
- Fix release line to include dist macro
License is GPLv2+, not GPLv2.
Done.
Remove Requires: readline, this is automatically picked up.
Done.
Remove pushd and popd from setup, you don't need them.
Done.
Change make command to
make %{?_smp_mflags}
as this works fine. The paths are already set by %configure.
Done.
Replace rm -Rf with rm -rf to be consistent.
Done.
Absolute paths in %files need to be replaced with %{_bindir}, %{_datadir} and
so on.
Whoops. Fixed.
Changelog is way too long, IMHO you may remove everything that is before
2006.
I removed all but the last entry before myself, just to make it clear that this
is based upon someone else's work.
You'll have to branch the emacs script in its own subpackage, as gri probably
works without it.
Created subpackages emacs-%{name} and emacs-%{name}-el. I am not an emacs user,
(brought up on vi(m)) so this is based upon reading refs [1-3]. So there may be
a mistake in my understanding here.
[1] http://chitlesh.fedorapeople.org/RPMS/dinotrace.spec
[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Emacs
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emacs_lisp#Source_code
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #4 from D Haley my...@yahoo.com 2009-02-10 04:09:21 EDT --- Correct SRPM url: SRPM URL: http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/gri-2.12.18-2.fc10.src.rpm (The other one now links to the same file, but has the wrong name). -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386
Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jussi.leht...@iki.fi
--- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-02-08 06:17:32
EDT ---
Just a few comments:
- License is GPLv2+, not GPLv2.
- Remove Requires: readline, this is automatically picked up.
- Remove pushd and popd from setup, you don't need them.
- Change make command to
make %{?_smp_mflags}
as this works fine. The paths are already set by %configure.
- Replace rm -Rf with rm -rf to be consistent.
- Absolute paths in %files need to be replaced with %{_bindir}, %{_datadir} and
so on.
- Changelog is way too long, IMHO you may remove everything that is before
2006.
--
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.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 484386] Review Request: gri - A language for scientific illustration
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=484386 --- Comment #2 from Jussi Lehtola jussi.leht...@iki.fi 2009-02-08 06:20:18 EDT --- Also, since the package includes Emacs files, you need to read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Emacs You'll have to branch the emacs script in its own subpackage, as gri probably works without it. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
