Bug 525211
Summary: | Review Request: rubygem-ditz - A command-line issue tracker | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jan Klepek <jan.klepek> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, kmcmartin, mtasaka, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mtasaka:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-10-09 08:38:40 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: | 525210 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Jan Klepek
2009-09-23 16:45:55 UTC
*** Bug 481502 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Well, as I said in bug 525210, rubygem-trollop is under GPLv2. However this (rubygem-ditz) is under GPLv3+, which is incompatible with GPLv2, so for now this package cannot be distributed. Note that even if rubygem-trollop is under "GPLv2 or Ruby", it is still incompatible with GPLv3+. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing Blocking FE-Legal yes, i agree that gplv3 is not compatible with gplv2, however regarding to this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#What_about_interpreted_languages_.28perl.2C_python.2C_etc.29.3F_If_I_have_a_package_written_in_an_interpreted_language.2C_and_it_pulls_in_code_.28of_the_same_language.29_from_a_different.2C_independent_package_at_runtime.2C_should_I_take_its_license_into_account_when_tagging_my_package.3F it should be ok. i will ask on fedora-legal about this. This is only saying that if a software containing scripts only written by Ruby, licensed under BSD "require"s (in ruby's sense) some other codes written by Ruby, licensed under GPLv2+, the license tag is still okay with "BSD", for example. The compatibility issue still remains. ok, if I contact upstream to provide explicit permission for linking/require to trollop library, would it fix this licensing issue? (In reply to comment #5) > ok, if I contact upstream to provide explicit permission for linking/require to > trollop library, would it fix this licensing issue? In my knowledge, yes: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html Spec URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-ditz.spec SRPM URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-ditz-0.5-2.fc11.src.rpm there is added explicit permission for trollop library "Additionally, this program may be linked to, distributed with, used with, and/or loaded with the Ruby "Trollop" library." (added http://gitorious.org/ditz/mainline/blobs/raw/master/README.txt into package) Hope it fixes license issues and FE-LEGAL could be cancelled. Okay, removing FE-Legal. Some notes: * Unneeded macros - The defined macro ruby_sitelib does not seem to be used anywhere. * License - Please change the license tag to "GPLv3 with exceptions" * Virtual (Build)Requires - For ruby(gem) modules related (Build)Requires, please don't use rpm names directly but use virtual Provides like perl: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides * Macros - Use macros properly. /usr/bin should be %{_bindir}. * Duplicate files - "LICENSE README.txt" are installed twice (one under %geminstdir, one under %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version) (In reply to comment #9) > Some notes: > > * Unneeded macros > - The defined macro ruby_sitelib does not seem to be used anywhere. > > * License > - Please change the license tag to "GPLv3 with exceptions" > > * Virtual (Build)Requires > - For ruby(gem) modules related (Build)Requires, please don't use > rpm names directly but use virtual Provides like perl: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requires_and_Provides > Fixed, however I never saw this in Ruby packaging guidelines. Is there any draft of new ruby guidelines which will cover this? > * Macros > - Use macros properly. /usr/bin should be %{_bindir}. > > * Duplicate files > - "LICENSE README.txt" are installed twice (one under %geminstdir, > one under %_defaultdocdir/%name-%version) Spec URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-ditz.spec SRPM URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-ditz-0.5-3.fc11.src.rpm For -3: * License - Well, actually it should be "GPLv3+ with exceptions", sorry. * Local copy of system-wide files - As rubygem-trollop is packaged seperately, this package should not include %geminstdir/lib/trollop.rb . * %files entry consideration - As ditz script is installed under %_bindir (as symlink), it is better that the corresponding man file is moved to %_mandir/man1 (currently under %geminstdir/man) - "INSTALL" file is probably not needed (this type of files are usually needed for people to install a software by themselves and not needed for people using rpm) - "Changelog" "LICENSE" and so on should correctly be marked as %doc. About using virtual Provides: - This is not specific to ruby or perl. Using virtual Provides for (Build)Requires is recommended in many cases, because this usage is one of the reasons we add virtual Provides. For example: - We use "BR: libGL-devel" instead of "BR: mesa-libGL-devel" - We use "R: tex(latex)" instead of "R: texlive-latex" (In reply to comment #11) > For -3: > > * License > - Well, actually it should be "GPLv3+ with exceptions", sorry. - fixed > * Local copy of system-wide files > - As rubygem-trollop is packaged seperately, this package > should not include %geminstdir/lib/trollop.rb . - oh, sorry, I must have somehow missed this in first place, fixed > * %files entry consideration > - As ditz script is installed under %_bindir (as symlink), > it is better that the corresponding man file is moved > to %_mandir/man1 (currently under %geminstdir/man) - not sure if i got the best solution... I'm gzipping man page and symlink it to %_mandir/man1, without gzip it create dangling symlink and move of manpage will corrupt gem structure. > - "INSTALL" file is probably not needed (this type of files > are usually needed for people to install a software by > themselves and not needed for people using rpm) > > - "Changelog" "LICENSE" and so on should correctly be > marked as %doc. - fixed Spec URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-ditz.spec SRPM URL: http://hpejakle.fedorapeople.org/packages/rubygem-ditz-0.5-4.fc11.src.rpm Well, I still think %{geminstdir}/INSTALL is not needed, however I will leave it to you where you remove this file or not. ------------------------------------------------------------- This package (rubygem-ditz) is APPROVED by mtasaka ------------------------------------------------------------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: rubygem-ditz Short Description: A command-line issue tracker Owners: hpejakle Branches: F-10 F-11 F-12 EL-5 InitialCC: cvs done. pushed in fedora |