Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Review Request: tanukiwrapper|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Miroslav Suchý <msuchy>|
|Component:||Package Review||Assignee:||Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>|
|Status:||CLOSED NOTABUG||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||akurtako, fedora-package-review, notting, steve.traylen|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2011-01-10 14:35:12 EST||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Miroslav Suchý 2010-11-20 09:51:47 EST
I would like to maintain this package. It has already been in Fedora, but has been orphaned and since last commit passed more then 3 month. Therefore according the policy it need to go through review again: SPEC: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/tanukiwrapper.orig/tanukiwrapper.spec SRC.RPM: http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/tanukiwrapper.orig/tanukiwrapper-3.2.3-5.fc12.src.rpm This is the version of tanukiwrapper which already has been in Fedora (last update on July 2010). No changes from me. I wanted to package latest version of Tanukiwrapper, but it changed license, which is non-free: http://email@example.com/msg00253.html This is most probably non-intentional change and upstream may be willing to release it under some free license, so I contacted them If they are willing to do some change toward free license. But so far I wanted to get into Fedora version 3.2.3 which has been release under BSD license.
Comment 1 Steve Traylen 2010-11-24 15:51:51 EST
Given your introduction to this package and it's current state do you feel tanukiwrapper is well maintained? Did you hear from upstream? Steve.
Comment 2 Miroslav Suchý 2010-11-25 10:57:03 EST
> Did you hear from upstream? No.
Comment 3 Alexander Kurtakov 2010-11-29 13:23:49 EST
There are a number of problems with the package and it can't go in Fedora in this way: * you have to drop gcj * javadoc post/postun should be removed * jars should be installed unversioned * javadoc directory should be unversioned * file permissions on doc suppackage are not defaults for no reason * missing requires on jpackage-utils in javadoc but it installs in a directory owned by it See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java for details.
Comment 4 Miroslav Suchý 2011-01-10 14:35:12 EST
I thought it will be much easier. I'm giving it up for now.
Comment 5 Miroslav Suchý 2011-05-24 03:34:20 EDT
If anybody stumble upon this bz - see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707132 for free fork of tanukiwrapper.