Bug 565603

Will review tomorrow.

Quick initial notes:

- License - the included file says it's GPLv2
- rpmlint complains of a missing BuildRoot tag
- As per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files can you add a note about why kitutuki.ksh is %config instead of %config(noreplace)

Questions:

As per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description would it make sense to include a Japanese summary/description as I see done in another package you maintain http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/eb/devel/eb.spec?revision=1.6&view=markup

--- 

Could the english summary/description be improved a bit - they don't say much about the usefulness of the software.

---

usage.en.txt is a bit sparse and I'm having trouble figuring out how to best use/test this. Would it be possible to either include a README.fedora with some english usage examples or perhaps a google translated version of usage.ja.txt (http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmagoazul.com%2Fusage.ja.txt)? I'm unsure on the Fedora policies here but it might be better than nothing.

---

I ran README.ja.txt through a google translation (http://translate.google.ca/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmagoazul.com%2FREADME.ja.txt&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8) and it tells me to try kitutuki_help:

mkent /misc/desktop > kitutuki_help
which: no lv in (/usr/kerberos/sbin:/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/misc/desktop/bin:/misc/desktop/.gem/ruby/1.8/bin)
/usr/share/doc/kitutuki/usage.en.txt: No such file or directory

but it's searching the wrong path for usage.en.txt and is missing "lv". After installing lv:

mkent /misc/desktop > kitutuki_help
run time err
kitutuki.ksh 237: index -> invalid option number

Thank you for reviewing this.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Quick initial notes:
> - License - the included file says it's GPLv2
- (On Fedora) just putting GPLv2 license text into the tarball
  does not mean that it is under GPLv2, rather it is under GPL+
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F

> - rpmlint complains of a missing BuildRoot tag
- I explicitly removed this because BuildRoot is no longer used.

> - As per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
> can you add a note about why kitutuki.ksh is %config instead of
> %config(noreplace)
- Will add in the next "release" (because kitutuki.ksh format may
  change in the next version as this package is uttely new package,
  for now I think replacing this file completely when upgrading
  version is much safer).

> Questions:
> 
> As per
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Summary_and_description
> would it make sense to include a Japanese summary/description as I see done in
> another package you maintain
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/eb/devel/eb.spec?revision=1.6&view=markup

- Will add Japanese summary/description in the next "release".

> Could the english summary/description be improved a bit - they don't say much
> about the usefulness of the software.
- Unfortunately the upstream does not explain this so much
  (the main purpose of this package is to be used by mfiler3 of next version
   - a CUI file manager developed by the same author )

> usage.en.txt is a bit sparse and I'm having trouble figuring out how to best
> use/test this. Would it be possible to either include a README.fedora with some
> english usage examples or perhaps a google translated version of usage.ja.txt
> (http://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fmagoazul.com%2Fusage.ja.txt)?
> I'm unsure on the Fedora policies here but it might be better than nothing.
- Maybe I do when I have some time... however I don't want to translate
  usage.ja.txt by myself.

> I ran README.ja.txt through a google translation
> (http://translate.google.ca/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmagoazul.com%2FREADME.ja.txt&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8)
> and it tells me to try kitutuki_help:
> 
> mkent /misc/desktop > kitutuki_help
> which: no lv in
> (/usr/kerberos/sbin:/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/misc/desktop/bin:/misc/desktop/.gem/ruby/1.8/bin)
> /usr/share/doc/kitutuki/usage.en.txt: No such file or directory
> 
> but it's searching the wrong path for usage.en.txt and is missing "lv". After
> installing lv:
> 
> mkent /misc/desktop > kitutuki_help
> run time err
> kitutuki.ksh 237: index -> invalid option number    
- I didn't notice this. Will fix in the next "release".

(In reply to comment #3)
> > I ran README.ja.txt through a google translation
> > (http://translate.google.ca/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmagoazul.com%2FREADME.ja.txt&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8)
> > and it tells me to try kitutuki_help:
> > 
> > mkent /misc/desktop > kitutuki_help
> > which: no lv in
> > (/usr/kerberos/sbin:/usr/kerberos/bin:/usr/local/bin:/bin:/usr/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/sbin:/sbin:/misc/desktop/bin:/misc/desktop/.gem/ruby/1.8/bin)

- Well, I decided not to fix this error messages (lv is not needed
  by default)

> > /usr/share/doc/kitutuki/usage.en.txt: No such file or directory
- This one is fixed
  By the way for non-Japanese people kitutuki_help only shows
  usage.en.txt, which seems not so useful...

http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/kitutuki/kitutuki-0.9.1-2.fc.src.rpm
http://mtasaka.fedorapeople.org/Review_request/kitutuki/kitutuki.spec

* Wed Feb 17 2010 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka.u-tokyo.ac.jp> - 0.9.1-2
- Add Japanese summary / description
- Add more comments about kitutuki.ksh
- Fix kitutuki.ksh for kitutuki_help

(In reply to comment #3)
> Thank you for reviewing this.
> 
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Quick initial notes:
> > - License - the included file says it's GPLv2
> - (On Fedora) just putting GPLv2 license text into the tarball
>   does not mean that it is under GPLv2, rather it is under GPL+
>  
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_do_I_figure_out_what_version_of_the_GPL.2FLGPL_my_package_is_under.3F
> 

Thanks for this - wasn't aware. 

Ah and I see GPL in the README.ja.txt now that I look closer.

> > - rpmlint complains of a missing BuildRoot tag
> - I explicitly removed this because BuildRoot is no longer used.
> 

Wasn't aware - thanks.

----

Package is well organized, compiles and functions. I don't see any blockers.

--------------------------------------------------------
  This package (kitutuki) is approved by mkent
--------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for a prompt review!

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name:        kitutuki
Short Description:   Shell script language
Owners:              mtasaka
Branches:            F-11 F-12 F-13
InitialCC:

Looks ok, as it is a rather new thing could you please make the description a little more verbose. Like what goals does the scripting language try to achieve, what syntax does it (try to) follow or resemble most closely.

See my previous comments.

(In reply to comment #8)
> See my previous comments.    

Maybe you could ask the upstream author for a better description?

CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

kitutuki-0.9.3-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kitutuki-0.9.3-1.fc13

kitutuki-0.9.3-1.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kitutuki-0.9.3-1.fc12

kitutuki-0.9.3-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kitutuki-0.9.3-1.fc11

Rebuilt for all branches, submitted push requests on bodhi, closing.
I will ask the upstream to make description verbose later.

Thank you for your review and cvs procedure.

kitutuki-0.9.3-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

kitutuki-0.9.3-1.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

kitutuki-0.9.3-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.