Spec URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/naturette/naturette.spec
SRPM URL: http://zanoni.jcomserv.net/fedora/naturette/naturette-1.3-1.fc7.src.rpm
Description: Naturette was made using AgiStudio. Naturette must find eight
diamonds to go back to her house. Contains nude scenes.
Package doesn't fullfill the licensing requirements of the Fedora project.
The License tas says 'Redistributable, no modification permitted'
If you not permitted to make modifications, then this is not a open source license.
This license was specifically OKd by Spot,
I cant see any comment from Spot on the link you fefer too.
Because you review request don't agree with my opion of the open source
distribution, I will reopen the bug for anyone else who want to review your
This is content, not source, and the license, while perhaps not optimal, is
acceptable for content in Fedora, just the same as the firmware licenses are.
I'll review this package.
My mistake, I was thinking of discussion around nagi. "Redistributable, no
modification permitted" is a valid Fedora license.
From my view, I have interpreted AGI like an interpreter, which should execute
the game, which you will package in your review request.
In this case the situation is simular to for example a perl programm which will
be executed by a perl interpreter. AFAIK in this case the above license may be
not valid for this case.
So I think, this is a boundary issue between pasive content and code which will
be interpreted by a game engine like a program by an interpreter.
Builds OK, installs and plays fine. rpmlint says:
E: naturette zero-length /usr/share/naturette/snddir
which is normal for AGI games which don't include sound.
* source files manually compared with upstream.
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is acceptable for content.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
naturette = 1.3-1.fc8
* %check is not present; no upstream test suite. Seems fine with manual
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* desktop file looks OK and installs without errors.
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: naturette
Short Description: An AGI adventure game
Branches: FC-6 F-7
Re 6/7: In what way would licensing restrictions differ between code and content?
In any case, AGI files are best described as a mix between code and content.
Open an AGI game in agistudio and look at LOGDIR and VIEWDIR to see what I mean.
Imported and built in devel.
naturette-1.3-1.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
naturette-1.3-1.fc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.