Bug 228296
Summary: | Review Request: python-lirc - Linux Infrared Remote Control python module | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Matthias Saou <matthias> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Ville Skyttä <ville.skytta> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | Flags: | ville.skytta:
fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-03-01 19:02:48 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Matthias Saou
2007-02-12 15:58:59 UTC
- While the license of pylirc in the sources and PKG-INFO is said to be LGPL, it links with liblirc_client which is unconditionally GPL AFAICT -> the license of this package when distributed should be GPL too. LGPL allows that (see its chapter 3 - references to LGPL should be replaced by GPL when doing that). - Add "Provides: pylirc = %{version}-%{release}" for upstream compatibility and because "python-lirc" is substantially different from "pylirc"? - Include PKG-INFO in %doc? Thanks for this quick and valuable feedback :-) lirc-0.0.5-2.fc6 available : * Thu Feb 8 2007 Matthias Saou <http://freshrpms.net/> 0.0.5-2 - Change License from GPL to LGPL as our package links with lirc which is GPL. - Add pylirc (original name) virtual provides. - Include the API doc and both examples from the website. Oh, I added PKG-INFO to the %doc (is it really useful?), but also took the time to add the only doc really available : the few pages on the website. Adding the extra docs is a nice idea, however they currently suffer from genericish SourceX file names. Prefix them by %{name}-* (in SRPM, not when installed)? About licensing, LGPL section 3 says: "You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public License instead of this License to a given copy of the Library. To do this, you must alter all the notices that refer to this License, so that they refer to the ordinary GNU General Public License, version 2, instead of to this License." I'm not 100% sure what that means in practical terms, but it sounds to me as if the license info should be changed not only in the License tag, but also the C source file as well as PKG-INFO, and possibly the newly added changes. Or at least add a note somewhere prominent about the change (separate file installed as %doc or something). What do you think? I don't see where "generic" file names would be a problem, as long as they're managed in CVS and not uploaded as sources. These will be managed in CVS. About the LGPL -> GPL change, I'd change it in the PKG-INFO that will go with the binary rpms, and that's it. No change to the C file, since the source rpm can be considered LGPL, but our binary builds against lirc will have to be GPL. Comments in the spec file will detail this a little. Would that be okay? Generic filenames have nothing to do with the Fedora CVS nor the lookaside cache. Both manage them just fine (lookaside cache using md5sums in dir names for different revisions of the same file). But when 'rpm -i'ing a bunch of source rpms locally it may very well become a problem. Adding specfile comments about the licensing stuff won't be visible to users of this package, therefore a seprately installed file included in the binary package detailing what was done is clearly a better solution in my opinion. Oh, I get it, you mean people still using a single %_sourcedir... hmmm... this is no longer relevant with mach/mock, and it makes the build simpler if you don't have to change the file names when installing them... do you *really* want me to change the file names? As for the license, we re-license the binary package under the GPL since it's linked to a GPL library. We aren't required to add something like "used to be LGPL", and I doubt a single end-user will actually care about the change, so as long as we comply with the terms and make the info available somewhere (in the source rpm), I would think it's fine. (In reply to comment #6) > do you *really* want me to change the file names? Yes. > We aren't required to add something like "used to be > LGPL", and I doubt a single end-user will actually care about the change, Shrug, even if not required, if it's worth it to spend much more time explaining why not add a user visible file noting why the license is changed than adding the file would have taken, and the possible questions about the change will flow your way as the maintainer later on too, I guess I shouldn't care. It's not only about end users, packagers of apps requiring this package will have to notice the change and take it into account in their packages as well. Conditionally approved with the assumption that the source filenames get a %{name}-* or something like that prefix before the first build. http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-lirc/python-lirc.spec http://ftp.es6.freshrpms.net/tmp/extras/python-lirc/python-lirc-0.0.5-3.src.rpm * Thu Mar 1 2007 Matthias Saou <http://freshrpms.net/> 0.0.5-3 - Prefix all our own documentation source files. - Include a README about our license changes and added docs. This should basically include all of what you suggested. Please confirm before I import the package ;-) Looks like an improvement to me, thanks. However, there's breakage - Both python-lirc-API and python-lirc-README are Source1, and Source4 doesn't exist. Approval still stands, I'm sure you'll fix those before the first build :) D'oh! Typical last second changes which... break. Good, that's fixed, and I just tested a rebuild & install. All seems fine. I'll go ahead and request CVS branches to be created now, thanks! http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure In the future, please follow the CVS procedure here. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: python-lirc Short Description: Linux Infrared Remote Control python module Owners: matthias Branches: FC-5, FC-6, EL-4, EL-5 InitialCC: Sorry Warren, I didn't know there was now a better documented way to make those CVS requests. Now I do. Ville : I'm pretty sure some people will be interested in running their HTPC on "stable" distros like RHEL... are you planning on getting lirc into EPEL? I am one of those people, but can't tell for sure yet - one big factor for me regarding various multimedia related packages is whether RHEL5/CentOS5 kernels will include DVB drivers (or if not, whether I feel like packaging them myself or can get them sanely packaged from somewhere else) and if I get past this point, how well I can get my VDR HTPC/PVR to run on it. If this turns out to be too much work for my taste, it's unlikely that I would be interested in maintaining LIRC in EPEL. |