Bug 478381

Summary:	Review Request: sugar-tamtam-common - Resources and python libraries for Sugar TamTam activities
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Aleksey Lim <alsroot>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, mail, notting
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:	2009-03-23 09:54:19 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:	462625, 478382, 478383, 478384, 478385

Description Aleksey Lim 2008-12-29 07:56:07 UTC

Spec URL: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SPECS/sugar-tamtam-common.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.sugarlabs.org/~alsroot/RPM/SRPMS/sugar-tamtam-common-52-1.20081229.fc10.src.rpm

Description:
TamTam is a suite of four music and sound related activities for theSugar. TamTam is written in python with some C functions for speed-critical services.The audio engine for TamTam is Csound.

rpmlint claims for right group, but other sugar activities also use Sugar/Activities group

COPYING.txt says GPLv3 but TamTam*.activity/activity/activity.info says GPLv2+, so I use GPLv2+ in spec

package demands sugar* and olpcsound packages from updates-testing repo but current olpcsound has unmets, thus I built sugar*.src.rpm from updates-testing and used them from local repo

Comment 1 Fabian Affolter 2009-01-27 23:50:05 UTC

(In reply to comment #0)
> COPYING.txt says GPLv3 but TamTam*.activity/activity/activity.info says GPLv2+,
> so I use GPLv2+ in spec

What did the upstream say about this?

Comment 2 Aleksey Lim 2009-02-05 15:59:10 UTC

(In reply to comment #1)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > COPYING.txt says GPLv3 but TamTam*.activity/activity/activity.info says GPLv2+,
> > so I use GPLv2+ in spec
> 
> What did the upstream say about this?

the right licence is GPLv3+,
now I'm waiting for authors' decision about merging branch(my packages based on) to trunk, after that I'm going re-upload all TamTam packages

Comment 3 Aleksey Lim 2009-03-23 09:54:19 UTC

since all honey activities should be installed from ASLO and distros provide only
http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Development_Team/Sugar_Platform/0.84
I'm closing this bug