Bug 463293 - Review Request: generic-release - Generic release files
Review Request: generic-release - Generic release files
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-09-22 16:36 EDT by Tom "spot" Callaway
Modified: 2008-09-22 17:56 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-09-22 17:56:40 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
vanmeeuwen+fedora: fedora‑review+
tcallawa: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-09-22 16:36:03 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/generic-release.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.auroralinux.org/people/spot/review/new/generic-release-9.91-1.src.rpm
Description: 

Generic release files such as yum configs and various /etc/ files that
define the release. This package explicitly is a replacement for the
fedora-release package, if you are unable for any reason to abide by the
trademark restrictions on the fedora-release package.

It also generates a generic-release-notes subpackage.
Comment 1 Jeroen van Meeuwen 2008-09-22 17:23:43 EDT
Several warnings but nothing different from fedora-release (which I suppose we can consider upstream from this package).

I do suggest using an URL though (which is the only extra warning), and maybe using https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal/TrademarkGuidelines is appropriate?

However, since this is basically a clone of the fedora-release package, and 9/10 warnings are for good reason, and the 10th warning is understandable, I approve this package
Comment 2 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-09-22 17:40:49 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: generic-release
Short Description: Generic release files
Owners: spot
Branches: devel
InitialCC:

... and it's done.
Comment 3 Patrice Dumas 2008-09-22 17:43:12 EDT
This package conflicts with fedora-release, so I think it should 
explicitly do so, with a comment.

Also I think that it would be better if there was no references to 
fedora-release in the %description, but that instead it referred to
something like 'the trademarked release package', for reuse in other
contexts. The %description would become along:


Generic release files such as yum configs and various /etc/ files that
define the release. This package explicitly is a replacement for the 
trademarked release package, if you are unable for any reason to abide 
by the trademark restrictions on the trademarked release package.
Comment 4 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-09-22 17:49:28 EDT
It is "fair use" to refer to the fedora-release package in the description, but I see what you're saying.

The conflicts is a valid point, I will go add that.
Comment 5 Tom "spot" Callaway 2008-09-22 17:56:40 EDT
Built in rawhide.

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