Bug 2025398 - Review Request: linapple - Apple IIe emulator
Summary: Review Request: linapple - Apple IIe emulator
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-11-22 05:14 UTC by Link Dupont
Modified: 2025-01-21 00:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-01-21 00:45:28 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Jakub Kadlčík 2022-08-18 22:32:44 UTC
Hello Link,
thank you for the package.

I tried to run it and it worked for me. The spec file is well-written
as well.

I have only a couple of suggestions. 

> Patch0:         fix-makefile.patch
> Patch1:         silence-const-char-errors.patch

We try to be upstream-first, can you please submit those patches as
pull requests, and link them in the spec as comments? Then we can
easily check if they are merged and that we can drop the custom
patches. 

If upstream is not interested in such changes and won't merge, at least
we tried and have justification for maintaining those patches here.

> %global commit 535ad7fc57378025757461dcb582db8b4c944564
> %global forgeurl https://github.com/linappleii/linapple
> Version: 0

I am looking at
https://github.com/linappleii/linapple/blob/master/CHANGELOG
and I think the current version is 2.1

So maybe we should package from this commit
https://github.com/linappleii/linapple/commit/c78c192141f5024f7c8618992d71754231cbff71
or maybe some other commit, that marks the 2.1 version?

It's from 2017 though, if we need some newer version, can you please
ask upstream to create a new release?

Comment 2 Package Review 2023-09-30 00:45:29 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Comment 3 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-10-01 21:00:38 UTC
> If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore

I am interested in reviewing this ticket but there is no response from the contributor.

Comment 4 Link Dupont 2023-12-08 00:36:43 UTC
Hey, I'm not gone... just busy. I looked at the current GitHub repository, and noticed there are no tags at all. That's probably why I set up the version as "0" and used a specific git commit. I believe this is the procedure recommended in the packaging guidelines when upstream has not published a tagged version or tarball. With version 2.1 not existing as a tag or tarball, I'd rather version it as "0" for now. If upstream decides to apply a reproducible tag, we can use that instead. I'll open the patches as pull requests to the project. That's a good point.

I haven't pushed this review request forward since I'm not sure if it qualifies for inclusion in Fedora. I think it requires a ROM file in order to run. Isn't that against the packaging guidelines?

Comment 5 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-12-22 12:44:45 UTC
> I'm not sure if it qualifies for inclusion in Fedora. I think it requires a ROM file in order to run. Isn't that against the packaging guidelines?

Good catch, thank you for pointing that out. The relevant documentation is:

- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/misc/#_emulators
- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/what-can-be-packaged/#_packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_code

but I am not familiar with linapple enough to make the call. I'll drop myself from the review so that somebody else can assign themselves. I'd also recommend asking on a mailing list whether this can be packaged or not:

- https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/
- https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/

Comment 6 Link Dupont 2023-12-22 14:06:53 UTC
I asked for clarification on the legal list. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/O2N2FIOTIRGBWZRCOKPL3TF3AZFIC2DV/

Comment 7 Package Review 2024-12-22 00:45:25 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 8 Package Review 2025-01-21 00:45:28 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.