Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 191998
Review Request: scrip -- spherical coordinate interpolation and remapping package
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:32 EST
Spec URL: http://mitgcm.org/eh3/fedora_misc/scrip.spec
SRPM URL: http://mitgcm.org/eh3/fedora_misc/scrip-1.4-3.src.rpm
Description: scrip -- spherical coordinate interpolation and remapping package
This package installs a single binary ("scrip") and a pdf-formatted
user's manual. The scrip program calculates remapping weights for
gridded data sets on the surface of a sphere. It reads netCDF files
that contain the grid information and writes netcdf files that contain
the remapping weights.
With the patch, the rpm flags are not acknowledged and the include and
libdir are hardcoded, so I propose the attaced patch instead.
Created attachment 129318 [details]
use variables on make command line to change compilation defaults
Hi Patrice, that certainly is an improvement -- thank you! And here are
the updated files:
* rpmlint is silent
* naming is good
* follow packaging guidelines
* licence acceptable and included
* spec legible
* source match upstream
* everything else is fine
* builds in mock
* the timestamp of the sources is wrong, I find it better to have
the right timestamp. In general I use spectool to achive that (or
maybe wget -N).
* the executables in grids/ may be compiled and distributed maybe with
scrip_ prefixed, and in that case the README file may also be added,
renamed for example README.utils.
* the bugs file could be in %docs
Did anyone notice that the license is not BSD as indicated in the spec? I
believe it is free according to the Open Source Definition, but the text
certainly does not resemble the BSD license text and the derivative works clause:
If SOFTWARE is modified to produce derivative works, such modified SOFTWARE
should be clearly marked, so as not to confuse it with the version available
from Los Alamos National Laboratory.
is not present in the BSD license.
Hi Jason, you're right that its not exactly BSD. It does appear to be
sufficiently "open" in that it allows modification, redistribution,
sale, etc. So I think the licesnse terms are perfectly acceptable for
inclusion in FE. The only question that remains is "what should we call
I'll be happy to change the license name in the spec before it gets built
and pushed (it was just imported). What would you folks like to call it?
Woiuld the "SCRIP License" be OK?
I don't think it corresponds to any existing license, but I agree that it's
certainly free enough. (Item 4 of the Open Source Definition allows requiring
the marking or renaming of derivative works.)
Are there other packages which use the same license? If not, "SCRIP License" is
probably fine but you'll have to endure the rpmlint warning.
Hi Patrice and Jason, thank you for the patch and speedy reviews! I've
incorporated almost all of your changes and will, as soon as I get some
more free time, add the SCRIP/grids and namelist files.
The package built successfully on devel and FC-4/5 branches have been