Bug 1975704

Change proposal:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/libmemcached-awesome

Fedora Rawhide Scratch build
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=70730744

# License: CC-BY-SA
# http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

Is this really necessary? This is the same as the current default in Fedora,
and spec files normally don't have a header. If we update the licensing, this
will become out of date…

# Please, preserve the changelog entries

Who would delete them?

> http://memcached.org/
No https?

> Is this really necessary? This is the same as the current default in Fedora,

No, default in Fedora is MIT
And I think "implicit" licensing is a terrible error

Too much bad experience with people pulling my work
without any attribution.

> No https?

Done

(In reply to Remi Collet from comment #4)
> No, default in Fedora is MIT

I read https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/fedoras-default-license-for-content-is-now-cc-by-sa-4-0/
and I assumed that this also applies to spec files.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main#License_of_Fedora_SPEC_Files says
> All original Fedora contributions are governed by the Fedora Project Contributor Agreement (FPCA).
> This means that unless a spec file contains an explicit license attribution within it, it is available
> under the terms of the MIT license. 

Apart from the outdated reference to MIT, this supports the conclusion that spec files
are under CC-BY-SA-4.0 currently.

> And I think "implicit" licensing is a terrible error
> Too much bad experience with people pulling my work
> without any attribution.

OK. I think the license header is superfluous, but it's certainly allowed, and if you want to keep it,
that fine.

Issues:
> %dir %{_includedir}
fedora-review says:
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include(filesystem)

So this line should be dropped.

> /usr/share/aclocal(filesystem),
> /usr/share/man/man3(filesystem)

Likewise.

+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (BSD)
+ license is specified correctly
+ build and installs fine in mock
+ obsoletion of the older package is done correctly
+ BR/Provides/Requires look OK
+ %check is present and passes

rpmlint:
libmemcached-awesome.src:43: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(bobjenkins-hash)
OK.

libmemcached-awesome.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) memcached -> schemed
libmemcached-awesome.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcached -> schemed
libmemcached-awesome.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Bogus.

libmemcached-awesome-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long C for libmemcached-awesome. If you like to develop programs using libmemcached-awesome,
Consider wrapping the text.

libmemcached-awesome-devel.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/include
libmemcached-awesome-devel.x86_64: E: standard-dir-owned-by-package /usr/share/man/man3
See above.

libmemcached-awesome-tools.x86_64: W: summary-not-capitalized C libmemcached-awesome tools
OK.

libmemcached-awesome-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US benchmarking -> bench marking, bench-marking, benchmark
OK.

libmemcached-awesome-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US capibilities -> capabilities, possibilities, liabilities
Please fix.

libmemcached-awesome-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US existance -> existence, assistance, resistance
Please fix.

libmemcached-awesome-tools.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcached -> schemed
OK.

7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 9 warnings.


Package is approved. Please fix the minor issues listed above when importing.

> So this line should be dropped.

Damned... missed these during cleanup for Fedora review... (original spec file own them as I used a different _prefix)

Fixed in https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/lib/libmemcached-last.git/commit/?h=fedora&id=3f50fe823c15986e6d2cba009127d4d9954acb2b

Spec and SRPM re-uploaded.

> Apart from the outdated reference to MIT, this supports the conclusion that spec files
> are under CC-BY-SA-4.0 currently.

from FPCA

==>  (either MIT for software or CC BY-SA for content). 

btw, some consider spec as code, other (like me) as content / documentation.

> OK. I think the license header is superfluous, but it's certainly allowed, and if you want to keep it,
> that fine.

Yes, I want, as I said it is not superfluous when spec used outside Fedora.

Thanks for the review (I miss the flag)

Waiting for Change proposal to be approved before opening the SCM requests

SCM request
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35742

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libmemcached-awesome

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-31b18d97b3