|Summary:||Review Request: qodem - terminal emulator and communications package.|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Jeff Gustafson <ncjeffgus>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Status:||CLOSED DUPLICATE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||fedora-package-review, hobbes1069, notting, tomspur|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2011-07-24 22:32:09 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Jeff Gustafson 2008-12-01 19:25:02 UTC
Spec URL: http://marlene.zimage.com/packages/qodem.spec SRPM URL: http://marlene.zimage.com/packages/qodem-0.1.2-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: Qodem is an open-source re-implementation of the once-popular Qmodem(tm) shareware communications package. Qodem (pronounced 'kodem', rhymes with 'modem') is now in beta. Its main features are: * Terminal interface: scrollback buffer, capture file, screen dump * Convenience: dialing directory, command-line invocation * Connection methods: serial, local shell, telnet, ssh, rlogin, rsh * Emulations: ANSI (with "ANSI music"), Avatar, VT52, VT100/102, VT220, Linux * Transfer protocols: X/Y/Zmodem, Kermit * Programmability: keyboard macros, full scripting --------------- I recently discovered this program and have found it to be useful for talking to some types of communications equipment via the serial port. Most of the time I just use 'cu -l /dev/ttyS0', but sometimes I need terminal emulation. I find that qodem loads faster than minicom. It is a small program that was easy to make into a package, so I decided to see if it would be useful to others. I think it would be a small, but very useful contribution to Fedora's package repository.
Comment 1 Jeff Gustafson 2008-12-09 00:39:02 UTC
Is there anything else I need to do to this package/spec to spur further consideration on this package?
Comment 2 manuel wolfshant 2008-12-13 03:25:02 UTC
At the first glance, I'd say that the license should be GPLv2+ because all the source files include either This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version. or (note the "later" in the last line ) * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. The combination LGPLv2+ + GPLv2+ = GPLv2+ You should also drop the Requires line, rpmbuild will add the dependency automatically. The INSTALL file is useless for the users of the packaged qodem so I suggest to not include it at all. OTOH, you should include the manpage available as docs/qodem.1.The content of the NEWS file makes reference to a [much] older version, I would not include it (no problem however if you keep it, but the elegant procedure would be to remove it now and reinclude it if/when real news are provided). For language files there is a special procedure, please read and follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Handling_Locale_Files. Please make sure you do not build your package against the bundled gettext (it is included below the intl/ directory). You should BuildRequire gettext instead.
Comment 3 Jeff Gustafson 2008-12-15 21:53:53 UTC
Created attachment 327029 [details] Patch Makefile so that it ignores the included gettext directory
Comment 4 Jeff Gustafson 2008-12-15 21:57:40 UTC
Thank you for checking out the package. I made the suggested changes. I make some quick changes to force the build to use the system-wide gettext. Let me know if this is either too heavy-handed or not going far enough. I included the patch as an attachment to this bug entry. I updated the .spec file and copied it up to the location initially reported in this entry. One other option would be to use the English-only .tar.gz file for qodem and avoid the gettext issue entirely. That way no .patch file would be needed.
Comment 5 manuel wolfshant 2009-02-01 02:43:54 UTC
Jeff, is there an updated package available for review ? At http://marlene.zimage.com/packages/ I can only see the first src.rpm Please do not forget to increment the release tag and add a proper entry in the changelog each time you make modifications to the spec. Are you already sponsored? I have not found you in FAS.
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-14 18:01:07 UTC
It's been many months since the last comment with no response from the submitter; I'll close this ticket soon if there's no progress.
Comment 7 Jeff Gustafson 2009-07-15 01:07:22 UTC
Somehow I must have missed your message. I made the requested changes. If there is issues with gettext, I will just compile with the English only version.
Comment 8 Jason Tibbitts 2009-07-15 02:46:59 UTC
Sorry, where did you make the requested changes? Could you post links to the updated spec and src.rpm?
Comment 9 Thomas Spura 2009-10-23 20:43:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #5) > Are you already sponsored? I have not found you in FAS. I didn't found you, too and can't find an answer to the question in a comment above. Asking again: Are you already sponsored? (In reply to comment #6) > It's been many months since the last comment with no response from the > submitter; I'll close this ticket soon if there's no progress. There seems to be progress, but no release incremention... Your changelog from above is: %changelog * Sun Nov 30 2008 Jeff Gustafson <jeffgus at, fedoraproject.org> - 0.1.2-1 - Initial package creation After applying the patch you could write: %changelog * Sun Oct 4 2009 Jeff Gustafson <jeffgus at, fedoraproject.org> - 0.1.2-2 - patch for gettext * Sun Nov 30 2008 Jeff Gustafson <jeffgus at, fedoraproject.org> - 0.1.2-1 - Initial package creation Notice the version incremention from 0.1.2-1 to 0.1.2-2. And post *new* links to the uploaded spec and src.rpm... (In reply to comment #6) > It's been many months since the last comment with no response from the > submitter; I'll close this ticket soon if there's no progress. Some month later, "soon" starts again from now on :)
Comment 10 Jason Tibbitts 2009-11-08 03:08:52 UTC
There's been no response in many months; I'm just going to go ahead and close this.
Comment 11 Richard Shaw 2011-07-24 12:25:52 UTC
I recently did some retro-BBS'ing and found qodem. I've created a package that I think should be acceptable. SPEC: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/qodem/qodem.spec SRPM: http://hobbes1069.fedorapeople.org/qodem/qodem-0.3.2-1.fc14.src.rpm
Comment 12 Richard Shaw 2011-07-24 12:26:59 UTC
I'm not going to consider this bug "ASSIGNED" anymore....
Comment 13 Thomas Spura 2011-07-24 12:46:24 UTC
You should open your own review request and close this one as a duplicate of the new one. Then reporter is equal to review requester...