Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 225706
Merge Review: dos2unix
Last modified: 2008-09-24 10:57:53 EDT
Fedora Merge Review: dos2unix http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/dos2unix/ Initial Owner: twaugh@redhat.com
* RPM name is OK * Builds fine in mock * File list looks OK Needs work: * BuildRoot should be %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#BuildRoot) * Missing SMP flags. If it doesn't build with it, please add a comment (wiki: PackagingGuidelines#parallelmake) * No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag. * Please use %{dist} in Release tag * Preserve file timestamps in %install Rpmlint is not silent: Source RPM: W: dos2unix invalid-license Freely distributable W: dos2unix no-url-tag W: dos2unix macro-in-%changelog description rpmlint of dos2unix: W: dos2unix invalid-license Freely distributable (you can use GPL) W: dos2unix no-url-tag
> * No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag. I don't think there is an upstream for this package any longer. > W: dos2unix invalid-license Freely distributable (you can use GPL) The COPYRIGHT file describes the license. It is not GNU GPL. New package: 3.1-28.fc7.
The copyright is a BSD (like FreeBSD BSD Variant (2 clause BSD) in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/BSD with an additional sentence about it not being GPL. When upstream is missing in such cases, I think the best is to become upstream, like what was done for vixie-cron -> cronie. And I believe that the way to do that is to go through: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/ProjectHosting/RequestingNewProject
Created attachment 302266 [details] Install copy as symbolic links. Also add a patch for missing prototypes (unistd.h)
Created attachment 302267 [details] add io.h in dos/win32, and unistd.h otherwise
Thanks. Built as dos2unix-3.1-32.fc9.
I think 3.1-33 looks fine, the only things I'd change is move "make clean" from %build to %prep, and add a comment about missing upstream somewhere in the top of the specfile. But those are cosmetic, approved as is. Feel free to close this bug when you've either done the above or decided not to bother with them.
I was ready to approve that package too, but then I had grand plans about always having some kind of upstream and distro collaboration and so on, and I wanted to begin with that package, but I definitly don't have time for that...
Thanks!