|Summary:||Review Request: mup - a music notation and printing program|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it>|
|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:||gbailey, notting, package-review, susi.lehtola, tcallawa|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|:||906411 (view as bug list)||Environment:|
|Last Closed:||2013-01-31 17:08:57 UTC||Type:||Bug|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Bug Depends On:|
Description Brendan Jones 2013-01-28 06:50:25 UTC
mup is a music notation and printing program with both GUI and CLI interfaces for authoring and printing music notation. rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/mup-6.1-1.x86_64.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mup-6.1-1.src.rpm mup.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mup-6.1-1.src.rpm SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mup.spec
Comment 1 Greg Bailey 2013-01-28 20:58:21 UTC
I've made a few changes to the .spec file to move things into proper directories for FHS compliance, and created a .desktop file so that mupmate shows up in the desktop menus. rpmlint SPECS/mup.spec RPMS/x86_64/mup* SRPMS/mup-6.1-2.fc18.src.rpm mup.x86_64: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License mup-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License mup.src: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. I put "Arkkra Mup License" because the license, while very similar to one of the BSD variants, doesn't match exactly. SRPM: http://lxpro.com/mup/mup-6.1-2.fc18.src.rpm SPEC: http://lxpro.com/mup/mup.spec
Comment 2 Greg Bailey 2013-01-28 23:38:39 UTC
According to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers I get bonus points :-) for posting a link to a successful koji build, so here goes: f19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4909766 epel6: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4909777
Comment 3 Susi Lehtola 2013-01-31 14:04:16 UTC
The license http://www.arkkra.com/doc/license.html looks like 2 clause BSD but with the addition 3. Any additions, deletions, or changes to the original files must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation. including the reasons for the changes, and the names of those who made the modifications Blocked FE-LEGAL. ** Greg: please don't hijack other people's review requests. Comments #2 and #3 might lead one to believe you are the submitter.
Comment 4 Brendan Jones 2013-01-31 14:18:41 UTC
Susi, I have spoken to Greg, he is going to make an new bug submission. He is upstream. All the headers seem to be BSD, there license file seems to be derivative of BSD. Can you guys check to make sure?
Comment 5 Susi Lehtola 2013-01-31 14:23:13 UTC
(In reply to comment #4) > All the headers seem to be BSD, there license file seems to be derivative of > BSD. Can you guys check to make sure? Let's wait for spot. This should be a no-brainer.
Comment 6 Brendan Jones 2013-01-31 14:27:34 UTC
Ok cool. Another comment, their license looks FOSS to me, so I am unsure of the FE-LEGAL block. Maybe it could be considered under "Good licenses"
Comment 7 Greg Bailey 2013-01-31 15:45:03 UTC
(In reply to comment #3) > > Greg: please don't hijack other people's review requests. Comments #2 and #3 > might lead one to believe you are the submitter. Apologies for any perceived hijacking; I was attempting to work with Brendan and he volunteered to pass this off. I was unaware that I was required to make my own review request until he stated so...
Comment 8 Greg Bailey 2013-01-31 15:46:42 UTC
(In reply to comment #4) > Susi, I have spoken to Greg, he is going to make an new bug submission. He > is upstream. > I've submitted BZ #906411. FYI, Brendan, I'm not upstream, just a long-time user of Mup.
Comment 9 Tom "spot" Callaway 2013-01-31 16:13:25 UTC
Can someone please explain to me why there now are two active Review Requests for this package? Is it possible to only have one? :)