Fedora Merge Review: procps
Initial Owner: email@example.com
If someone's reviewing this, they should assign it to themselves and set the
state to ASSIGNED. Otherwise the fedora-cvs flag should be cleared so it shows
up in the review queue.
Given that there was no response, I went ahead and cleared the fedora-review flag.
* The files in the source tarball use the LGPLv2+ not just the GPLv2+.
* There's no reason why the %post scriptlet is not simply
%post -p /sbin/ldconfig
* From the build.log:
/usr/bin/strip: unable to copy file
That is because the lib is installed u-w and only later gets attr(0755,...).
Easy to fix at end of %install section.
* When you use "install" in the spec or modify the install
options, prefer "install -p ..." to preserve file timestamps.
Users appreciate it when the age of files in packages can be
seen, and e.g. documentation from several years ago does not
get a fresh timestamp as if it were new.
This is easy to fix in the make install line.
* All these can be fixed in CVS. Hence: APPROVED
I don't see that any of these changes have been made in CVS, yet this package
has been approved.
Because we have a situation where many of the maintainers either do not see the
bugzilla notices (because the tickets are not assigned, because they get too
much bugspam already, or because the maintainer has changed since these tickets
were opened) or simply do not pay attention to the merge reviews, please do not
approve merge reviews until after you have verified that the changes are in CVS.
It's not generally necessary to wait until the package is built and pushed to
rawhide; I usually just set the flags and close the ticket once I've seen the
changes in a checkout.
By the way, the licensing situation seems more complicated. I see that free.c
is LGPLv2 only, most bits are LGPLv2+, kill.1 says in its comments GPLv2, top.1
is GFDL. Ugh.
pgreg.c : GPL referring to the file COPYING (which is the GPLv2)
pwdx.c : LGPLv2
I have committed the suggested changes to the devel branch.
Is this package's status supposed to be NEW, ASSIGNED, or CLOSED RAWHIDE?
Then somebody else re-review this and see whether LGPLv2 and
GPLv2 must be added to the licence tag (comment 5).
The GFDL is not a code licence.
Tom, can you please clarify the licensing here? IMHO it should be "GPLv2 and
GFDL", but I'm not so good with dealing such nasty licensing things ;-)
You can list the GFDL if you want to. We're not requiring that the License tag
reflect packaged documentation unless it is the only thing in a package/subpackage.
As to the code license, it is up to you, but I would say that the combined work
as generated from the procps source is GPLv2 (the most restrictive of the
several GPL versions listed in the code bits). If you wanted to list GPLv2 and
LGPLv2 as the license, that would also be fine.
The MUST changes have been applied to CVS some time ago already. The license
stuff has been clarified by Tom some time ago and is in CVS acceptable, too.
Thanks to Michael, Jason, Tom and Tomas for their work: APPROVED.