Bug 904911
| 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> | |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | ||
| Priority: | unspecified | |||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | gbailey, notting, package-review, susi.lehtola, tcallawa | |
| Target Milestone: | --- | |||
| Target Release: | --- | |||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
| OS: | Unspecified | |||
| Whiteboard: | ||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
| Clone Of: | ||||
| : | 906411 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2013-01-31 17:08:57 UTC | Type: | Bug | |
| 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: | 182235 | |||
|
Description
Brendan Jones
2013-01-28 06:50:25 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 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 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. 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? (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. 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" (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... (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. Can someone please explain to me why there now are two active Review Requests for this package? Is it possible to only have one? :) Closing - see bug 906411 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 906411 *** |