|Summary:||Review Request: flpsed - WYSIWYG pseudo PostScript editor|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Nicholas Boyle <nsboyle>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka>|
|Status:||CLOSED ERRATA||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||ewan, fedora-package-review, mtasaka, notting|
|Fixed In Version:||0.5.0-3.fc7||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2007-09-18 22:31:38 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Nicholas Boyle 2007-08-14 01:16:47 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.emich.edu/nboyle/flpsed.spec SRPM URL: http://people.emich.edu/nboyle/flpsed-0.5.0-1.fc7.src.rpm Description: Flpsed is a WYSIWYG pseudo PostScript editor. "Pseudo", because you can't remove or modify existing elements of a document. Flpsed lets you add arbitrary text lines to existing PostScript 1 documents. Added lines can later be reedited with flpsed. Using pdftops, which is part of xpdf, one can convert PDF documents to PostScript and also add text to them. flpsed is useful for filling in forms, adding notes etc. This is my first package, so I will be in need of a sponsor.
Comment 1 Ewan Mac Mahon 2007-08-19 23:40:28 UTC
Hi, I can't sponsor you, I'm afraid, so this is an entirely unofficial review but I hope it's useful: - Licence field is plain GPL; according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines it should be versioned; in this case COPYING is GPLv2, and the source makes no mention of the 'or any later version' text, so this field should read GPLv2. - rpmlint is clear except for license problem. - Buildroot is the older, now second preference version, not really a problem. (see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-b4fdd45fa76cbf54c885ef0836361319ab962473) - %files includes INSTALL which are just the generic instructions, this is considered irrelevant as per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b - This is a GUI application, but does not include a .desktop file. (see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop) Otherwise it looks OK to to me, and builds in mock for F7 and F-devel.
Comment 2 Nicholas Boyle 2007-08-21 03:07:38 UTC
Thanks for the review Ewan! Updated stuff: SPEC: http://people.emich.edu/nboyle/flpsed.spec SRPM: http://people.emich.edu/nboyle/flpsed-0.5.0-2.fc7.src.rpm I rolled in all of the suggestions from above. On the topic of a .desktop file, I wasn't sure what the convention was if there is no existing icon (and I don't have the artistic skill to create one :P ), so there is no icon specified. It seemed to me a "Requires: [package with a bunch of stock icons]" would be kind of silly, but of course I could be mistaken.
Comment 3 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-09-04 18:52:14 UTC
For 0.5.0-2: * License - Well, actually this is "GPLv2+" (GPL version 2 and any later) because * The source does not mention any version (even "version 2"). In this case The following sentence (in GPL text) is applied. ------------------------------------------------------------- If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. ------------------------------------------------------------- * Requires - This package actually requires ghostscript and this package should have "Requires: ghostscript". * Before being sponsored: ============================================================= NOTE: Before being sponsored: This package will be accepted with another few work. But before I accept this package, someone (I am a candidate) must sponsor you. Once you are sponsored, you have the right to review other submitters' review requests and approve the packages formally. For this reason, the person who want to be sponsored (like you) are required to "show that you have an understanding of the process and of the packaging guidelines" as is described on : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/HowToGetSponsored Usually there are two ways to show this. A. submit other review requests with enough quality. B. Do a "pre-review" of other person's review request (at the time you are not sponsored, you cannot do a formal review) ============================================================== - Well, it seems that you pre-reviewed bug 253781, however I must say that your way of writing (pre-)review makes it difficult for reporter, other reviewers etc.. to check your comment easily. Would you once summarize what the reporter must fix on bug 253781?
Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2007-09-04 19:30:40 UTC
Note that due to this text: If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. Even GPLv1 is OK, and the License: tag should be "GPL+".
Comment 5 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-09-05 12:23:57 UTC
(In reply to comment #4) > Even GPLv1 is OK, and the License: tag should be "GPL+". Thanks, Jason. So would you update your srpm/spec, Nicholas?
Comment 6 Nicholas Boyle 2007-09-05 15:45:21 UTC
Thanks for all the input: (In reply to comment #3) > * Requires > - This package actually requires ghostscript and this package should > have "Requires: ghostscript". Done (In reply to comment #4) > Even GPLv1 is OK, and the License: tag should be "GPL+". Agreed. However, to err on the side of caution I've sent an e-mail to upstream just to make sure how this program is technically licensed is how they personally intended it to be licensed. I agree with the GPL+ version, but just want to confirm that they do as well. :) As soon as I get the ok (or updated sources with correct license) from upstream, I will upload and link my latest changes.
Comment 7 Nicholas Boyle 2007-09-08 03:20:04 UTC
Revision 3: SRPM: http://people.emich.edu/nboyle/flpsed-0.5.0-3.fc7.src.rpm SPEC: http://people.emich.edu/nboyle/flpsed.spec All previous suggestions have been implemented. (GPL+, Requires: ghostscript)
Comment 8 Mamoru TASAKA 2007-09-08 12:43:26 UTC
Okay. * This package is okay (can be rebuilt, installed, and seem to work well) * Your pre-review looks good (for a brief check) =========================================================== This package (flpsed) is APPROVED by me =========================================================== Please follow the procedure according to: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Get a Fedora Account". At a point a mail should be sent to sponsor members which notifies that you need a sponsor (at the stage, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship) Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 7, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me.
Comment 9 Nicholas Boyle 2007-09-08 14:43:22 UTC
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: flpsed Short Description: WYSIWYG pseudo PostScript editor Owners: nboyle Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
Comment 10 Kevin Fenzi 2007-09-09 22:17:59 UTC
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2007-09-10 16:51:34 UTC
flpsed-0.5.0-3.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2007-09-18 22:31:37 UTC
flpsed-0.5.0-3.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.