Bug 204513

My 2c: why name of package is so ugly? Maybe it would be better to call it just
"xcalc"? Look at the xterm package - it calls "xterm", not "xorg-x11-xterm".

I would actually prefer for it to be called xcalc myself, but I named it that
way b/c I thought it was consistent with the rest of the xorg-x11 sourced
packages.  (Oddly enough, it appears that xterm is not an xorg package.)

The other problem that I ran into (and if anyone has an idea of how to address
this issue), I wanted to make the version number X11R7.0-1.0.1, but that is an
illegal version number.

The version number seems to be 1.0.1 from configure.ac. So, no
need to have X11R7.0.

* There could be the word calculator in the summary, it is a bit
  terse currently
* you should add the version to the Provides: xcalc
* a dot should end the description
* the Requires aren't needed for libs, they should be autodetected
* are you sure xorg-x11-xbitmaps is needed?
* are all the buildrequires really needed? For example 
  libXdmcp-devel don't seems to be needed to me. indirect buildrequires
  are optional.
* the Changelog could be in %doc
* in %files macros should be used

there is also
W: xorg-x11-xcalc strange-permission xcalc-X11R7.0-1.0.1.tar.bz2 0600

To be sponsored, you should have a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored

Without xorg-x11-bitmaps, you will get an warning upon launch that states:
Warning: Cannot convert string "calculator" to type Pixmap
This is due to xcalc looking for its corresponding pixmap.  It will run without
it, but it throws warnings up that I doubt people would like.  So, I figured
that in order to prevent warnings, the package might as well have the dependency.

As per above comments, I added some text to summary, cleaned up the
buildrequires list, and added ChangeLog to %doc.  The files now use appropriate
macros.

Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xorg-x11-xcalc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xorg-x11-xcalc-1.0.1-2.fc5.src.rpm

In my opinion, the name may be xcalc and not xorg-x11-xcalc. 
Indeed the xorg-x11- prefix is used for collection of softwares, 
or to disambiguate with regard with other implementations, so 
I guess here it is not required. Therefore you can, if you prefer,
use xcalc as name and Provides: xorg-x11-xcalc.

For the provides, you can also use the %{version} to avoid having to change
it at each release:
Provides: xcalc = %{version}

You don't have to define the x11_app_defaults_dir, you can, at your
will define it like you did, or simply have in %files:
%{_datadir}/X11/app-defaults/XCalc
%{_datadir}/X11/app-defaults/XCalc-color

In %files, I personally prefer to use glob for man pages extensions, to 
catch the case of no compression or compression using different schemes.
If you like it you can change to
%{_mandir}/man1/xcalc.1x*

The COPYING file is empty, so the licence should be found by reading
the individual file licences. All of the files are under the X11 licence, 
except math.c which don't have a licence, but some authors, which are
also copyright owners unless otherwise stated. As the default licence is 
like a proprietary licence, this is not good for inclusion in fedora.
It is likely, however, that before the split, this package was included
in a package with proper COPYING and licence information. My personnal
opinion is that upstream should be asked for clarification, and otherwise
licence information from older releases should be found and used.

libXaw-devel requires libXt-devel and libXpm-devel, libXt-devel requires
libSM-devel and libX11-devel, so, optionally, you can remove
libXt-devel, libXpm-devel, libSM-devel and libX11-devel
from BuildRequires.

The only blocker item is the license issue for math.c.

I would also prefer if this package were called 'xcalc', simply because it will
make it much easier to find :-)

I would assume that the appropriate license is here:
ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.0/doc/LICENSE

The X11R6.9.0 license is here:
ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.9.0/doc/LICENSE

As stated here:
ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R6.9.0/doc/README
R6.9 and R7.0 are in fact the same, but R7.0 has a reorganzied tree.  R6.9
packaged xcalc as part of the larger tarball with the above licenses. 
Therefore, I believe it is safe to assume that the above license is accurate and
does not require conferral with upstream.  Anyone have comments on this?  If
there is no issue, do I patch in the license then?  Or do I simply have it as a
source file?

I removed libX11-devel from the BuildRequires list.  I tried removing the
others, but mock builds fail when I do.  (Not sure why that would be the case,
but it is.)  So I put them back in.

I removed x11_app_defaults_dir for simplicity and am now using globbing for the
man pages.

Due to popular demand, the package name has been renamed to xcalc.  Now that the
name of the package is xcalc, does it still need a corresponding provides?

Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-3.fc5.i386.rpm

Oops, SRPM URL should be:
http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-3.fc5.src.rpm

Oops, SRPM URL should be:
http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-3.fc5.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #7)
> I would assume that the appropriate license is here:
> ftp://ftp.x.org/pub/X11R7.0/doc/LICENSE

But there is no reference to John H. Bradley, or to 
the University of Pennsylvania. No licence seems to fit with
math.c. Said otherwise there are a lot of licences in the file, but
none seems to be selectable for math.c.


> R6.9 and R7.0 are in fact the same, but R7.0 has a reorganzied tree.  R6.9
> packaged xcalc as part of the larger tarball with the above licenses. 
> Therefore, I believe it is safe to assume that the above license is accurate and
> does not require conferral with upstream.  Anyone have comments on this? If
> there is no issue, do I patch in the license then?  Or do I simply have it as a
> source file?

In that case adding a source file, with a full url seems the 
best to me. But I disagree that this file closes the issue.


> I removed libX11-devel from the BuildRequires list.  I tried removing the
> others, but mock builds fail when I do.  (Not sure why that would be the case,
> but it is.)  So I put them back in.

That's weird. It may be worth debugging on its own, but it isn't
a blocker for the package.
 

> name of the package is xcalc, does it still need a corresponding provides?

The 
Provides: xcalc = %{version}
is certainly unneeded, but you can add, if you like,
Provides: xorg-x11-xcalc = %{version}

In my opinion, the licence is still an issue.

There is a missing handling of desktop file:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-254ddf07aae20a23ced8cecc219d8f73926e9755

I found that the xbitmaps package is needed because of the resource:
XCalc.IconPixmap:       calculator

so maybe you could use /usr/include/X11/bitmaps/calculator to
generate an icon suitable for use in .desktop using convert 
(I would propose a conversion to png) and add it as a Source.

(In reply to comment #10)
> But there is no reference to John H. Bradley, or to 
> the University of Pennsylvania. No licence seems to fit with
> math.c. Said otherwise there are a lot of licences in the file, but
> none seems to be selectable for math.c.

I have reached out to John H. Bradley (who is also the author of xv) to see what
the license is.  I assume that if I get an answer, this can be considered the
definitive answer?

> I have reached out to John H. Bradley (who is also the author of xv) to see what
> the license is.  I assume that if I get an answer, this can be considered the
> definitive answer?

Of course. If it isn't free software, then we're in trouble...

(In reply to comment #11)
> There is a missing handling of desktop file:

Done.

(In reply to comment #12)
> so maybe you could use /usr/include/X11/bitmaps/calculator to
> generate an icon suitable for use in .desktop using convert 
> (I would propose a conversion to png) and add it as a Source.

Done.

I believe that I've addressed everything outside of the license issue in this
latest update.

Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-4.fc5.src.rpm

Still some issues:

* in the .desktop file I think the Version doesn't seems to be for the
  software version, but maybe to show conformance to a specification 
  version. Just remove it or have a look at the freedesktop standard.

* the icon is not placed rightly. It should better be in 
%{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/xcalc.png

* you should then use the scriplet
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets?action=show&redirect=ScriptletSnippets#head-7103f6c38d1b5735e8477bdd569ad73ea2c49bda

* this is only a remark, not a blocker, but I prefer using 
  install over cp, since with install you can set explicitely
  the permissions you want with -m.

(In reply to comment #16)

> * the icon is not placed rightly. It should better be in 
> %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps/xcalc.png

Since the icon isnn't exactly high color, really isn't high res, and it seemed
that others (e.g. AbiWord) placed the icon in that directory, I figured that was
the appropriate location.  Regardless, icon is now in that directory.

> * you should then use the scriplet

Corrected.

> * this is only a remark, not a blocker, but I prefer using 
>   install over cp, since with install you can set explicitely
>   the permissions you want with -m.

Agreed.

I also removed the Version from the .desktop file.

Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-4.fc5.src.rpm

I received a reply from John Bradley.  I think we are in the clear.  I have
copied his reply verbatim below:

xcalc, eh?  Good lord, I haven't seen or thought about *that* in 15 years or so.
Personally, I disavowed all interest in that project when some MIT people
rewrote the thing for X11, using Xt.  (My original was for X10R3/R4, and used
Xlib only.)  I've never used Xt, actively disliked it at the time, and have
never bothered to look at or otherwise understand the X11 version of the xcalc
source.

Anyway... I don't care *at all* about xcalc, or any parts thereof that still
have my name on them.  Anyone's free to do whatever they'd like with it, as far
as I'm concerned. X11R7 license?  Sure, why not.

(In reply to comment #17)

> Since the icon isnn't exactly high color, really isn't high res, and it seemed
> that others (e.g. AbiWord) placed the icon in that directory, I figured that was
> the appropriate location.  Regardless, icon is now in that directory.

There is also a locolor dir, but it doesn't seems to be used, nor
usable. My understanding is that the name hicolor is a remnant of the past,
and that it is the default theme, whatever the resolution/color and so on.
So it is better to have icons there, since they can be in places
corresponding with their size.

(In reply to comment #18)
> I received a reply from John Bradley.  I think we are in the clear.  I have
> copied his reply verbatim below:

Ok, so please add that response to a file you add in Source (with
a mention of the date, too). The licence is now clearly X11, there
is no code under the BSD licence in xcalc.

Some additional comments:

* you miss a make invocation in %build
* in the changelog for 1.0.1-4, I think the file wasn't an 'xpm file',
  but an 'xbm file'. And there is dekstop instead of desktop

And also the the srpm url is wrong in comment #17, although the right 
one is only a change in release away.

(In reply to comment #20)

> Ok, so please add that response to a file you add in Source (with
> a mention of the date, too). The licence is now clearly X11, there
> is no code under the BSD licence in xcalc.

I was unsure of how exactly to proceed with this.  What I did was to add a
source with full url to the X11R7.0 license.  I also added a file LICENSE.xcalc
documenting the licensing issue and John Bradley's corresponding response.

(In reply to comment #21)

> * you miss a make invocation in %build

Wow... not sure how I missed that one all this time.

> * in the changelog for 1.0.1-4, I think the file wasn't an 'xpm file',
>   but an 'xbm file'. And there is dekstop instead of desktop

Fixed.

LICENSE.xcalc: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/LICENSE.xcalc
Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-6.fc5.src.rpm

Parallel make should be used whenever possible:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-525c7d76890cb22df33b759c65c35c82bf434d2e

Regarding the licence, I think that the LICENCE file form X11R7 is not
usefull, if I'm not wrong when John say X11R7 licence, I think he is
referring to the X consortium license, the second license in the
X11R7 LICENCE file. Since it is the licence that covers the other files
in xcalc my opinion is that the full LICENCE file from X11R7 is not
needed, and may even be misleading. (in case it would have been 
needed adding it with a full source was right).

Another comment is that I find the naming of LICENSE.xcalc a bit unfortunate,
it may be more accurately called something along
math.c-LICENSE.xcalc, or xcalc-math.c-license-mail

A licence file for the xcalc as a whole could be a X consortium licence.
But it isn't required since upstream don't have one. 

Anyway, if you want to shut down rpmlint you could use MIT
for the licence, but MIT/X11 is clearly better, so use what you prefer.

I parallelized the make.
I renamed the email license file to xcalc-math.c-license-mail.
I removed the X11R7 license file.
I would rather leave license as MIT/X11 since it is what the rest of xorg
packages use as their license because it is more accurate.

In my email to John, I had asked him if the X11R7 license could be applied and
also asked him what he believed the license for xcalc was.  Regardless, I think
that I'd prefer if we just include his email and ship one less file.

Spec URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~amlai/xcalc/xcalc-1.0.1-7.fc5.src.rpm

* rpmlint warns only about the license, it may be ignored
* follows packaging and naming guidelines
* free software, with a precision on the file with a missing
  licence. No license file included, but there is none 
  upstream. 
* spec legible
* match upstream:
c1ecea85be15f746a59931e288768bdb  xcalc-X11R7.0-1.0.1.tar.bz2
* clean provides:
Provides: xorg-x11-xcalc = 1.0.1
  to match the name of other Xorg packages
* %files right
* a gui app, with icon and desktop file included

This is potentially approved whenever you get sponsored.
I am almost ready to sponsor you, since you shown you 
were ready to follow the guidelines, you have the required
skills. This was not a very difficult package, but the licence
issue was annoying and all the desktop stuff was missing.

If you just show some more interest in fedora extras
(as described in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored)
I'll sponsor you.

I still have some comments on the package:

- in xcalc.desktop, the GenericName should better be along
  'Scientific Calculator' (like for kcalc) 'Calculator' or
  'Graphical Calculator'. (Could be changed after importing to CVS)
- maybe you could notice xorg about the license issue. Normally
  you should ask for a licence file inclusion, but in that 
  case I think that xorg allready knows that some split tarballs
  don't have a licence file.
- when I start I have warnings:
Warning: Missing charsets in String to FontSet conversion
Warning: Cannot convert string "-adobe-symbol-*-*-*-*-*-120-*-*-*-*-*-*" to type
FontStruct
  and the button corresponding with the square root is labelled 
ö`
  this may be a local configuration issue or a bug in fonts or resource
  file. Something that may be worth investigating, but not a blocker.

amlai: Do you still wish to submit this package? There hasn't been any activity
here in a long while. 

Did you read the HowToGetSponsored link Patrice posted in comment #25?

If I don't hear anything in 1 week I will go ahead and close this. 

I unfortunately do not have the time to invest in order to get sponsored.  It 
would be nice if someone were to actually get this package included.  However, 
I do not believe that person will be me.  If someone wants to take the 
package, then by all means do so.

I really would like to have this package in fedora. I used it
before and it is nice to have something lightweight X only for 
light setups. I think I'll make an announce on fedora-devel.

It looks like there was some interest on the devel list... 

I am going to close this submission and the interested party can file a new
request for their package.