Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.1-0.3.fc10.i386.rpm Description: TV-Browser is a free electronic program guide (EPG). It offers more than 500 stations. This is my first package (with a little starting aid from che on #fedora-de) and I need a mentor. When I build the rpm, I seem to have some small problems that I've not been able to solve: - find: `debug': No such file or directory - some in-the-jars operation has a problem with a file within a jar that has spaces in its filename: + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars cp: cannot stat `./bbc/rd/tvanytime/util/Copy': No such file or directory cp: cannot stat `of': No such file or directory cp: cannot stat `DVBLocatorToolbox': No such file or directory - javadoc compilation fails in this version of tvbrowser. I commmented those parts out for now and hope upstream will solve this. Nevertheless, I can install and run the application just fine. I was not sure, if it's ok to include out-of-the-box plugins/whatever in the base package or if I need to create additional packages for those. Comments and mentors welcome ;)
- You need to provide a src rpm. - Please specify a download url for Source0. - Missing changelog. - Missing %doc files (at least add COPYRIGHT.txt). - Package should be noarch. rpmlint output: tvbrowser.i386: W: no-documentation tvbrowser.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Free EPG for over 500 stations. tvbrowser.i386: E: description-line-too-long TV-Browser is a free electronic program guide (EPG). It offers more than 500 stations. tvbrowser.i386: E: no-changelogname-tag tvbrowser.i386: E: no-binary
Furthermore, you (accidentally) transferred classes from .jar files from the 'source' distribution into the final rpm, which is strictly not allowed. The reason is, that this command is wrong: find -name '*.jar' -o -name '*.class' -exec rm -f '{}' \; It needs to be changed to find \( -name '*.jar' -o -name '*.class' \) -exec rm -f '{}' \; in order to work as expected.
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.1-0.4.fc10.src.rpm Everything mentioned in the comments above fixed. Those precompiled jars from upstream's src distribution are now BuildRequires, and those not already available in Fedora are now ready for review (see the dependency tree of this request). During javadoc generation there's a NullPointerException for no obvious reason. I was not yet able to track this down and will need some more time for this. But I wouldn't consider the javadoc a show-stopper since this is an application and no library or the like. rpmlint on spec, srpm and noarch-rpms finishes checking without any warnings or errors. Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg.
(Removing NEEDSPONSOR)
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.1-1.fc10.src.rpm New version including much of the experience I got when my jcalendar pkg was reviewed.
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.2-1.fc11.src.rpm New version: 2.7.2
Well, currenly I make this package blocked by FE-Legal This package itself is under GPLv2+, however - This package also depends (BRs) on skinlf and l2fprod-common - skinlf (bug 469471, already imported into Fedora) is under "ASL 2.0 and zlib and ASL 1.1" - I checked l2fprod-common (bug 475017) and actually this is under "ASL 2.0 and ASL 1.1" - And ASL 1.1 is not compatible with GPLv2+: see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing So: - Would you ask l2fprod-common upstream to relicense all files under ASL 1.1 to ASL 2.0? - And also would you ask skinlf upstream to do so? By the way ASL 1.1 is this: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1
I dropped both projects a quick line outlining the issue and what we'd like from them. Both have the same head developer which makes it a bit easier. Unfortunately, both projects haven't seen a commit or release in many months or even some years...not sure if I'll get any answer at all and how much they're interested in changing licenses after such a long time. While all websites of those projects and the head developer's website on all his projects are pretty much outdated, his blog is still current...so we know at least the head developer is still alive.
Okay, thank you for update.
Surprise, surprise! I got an answer in short time and the head developer (Fred) replied that he was under the impression that everything is already licensed under ASL 2.0 (for both packages). He said, that if I provide him a list with the files with a different license he'll happily change those to ASL 2.0. So, the question now is: what's the easiest way to create a list of all files showing each file's license? Or can this only be done manually?
licensecheck.pl does a pretty good job as a first iteration
licensecheck.pl only recognizes four different types of 'licenses' in l2fprod-common and l2fprod-skinlf: - Apache (v2.0) - UNKNOWN - GENERATED FILE - *No copyright* GENERATED FILE Is it safe to say anything not ASL 2.0 is ASL 1.1? Some should be zlib according to Mamoru, though. I'm _really_ bad with licenses and need some help here.
(In reply to comment #10) > Surprise, surprise! I got an answer in short time and the head developer (Fred) > replied that he was under the impression that everything is already licensed > under ASL 2.0 (for both packages). He said, that if I provide him a list with > the files with a different license he'll happily change those to ASL 2.0. Thanks you for feedback. I will post on this bug the list of the files which needs license change.
Created attachment 330106 [details] License analysis License analysis for l2fprod-common and skinlf is attached. Some files in l2fprod-common and almost all files in skinlf are under ASL 1.1 (for skinlf, LICENSE text itself shows ASL 1.1). For skinlf, src/examples/Clock.java has a quite questionable license clause: ----------------------------------------------------- ii) Licensee does not utilize the software in a manner which is disparaging to Sun. ----------------------------------------------------- I guess this clause is NON-FREE. In Fedora skinlf this file is currently removed.
Fred says he updated the files in their CVS but is having problems getting the maven build to work. He'll maybe drop back to the old ant script. We're currently using ant in the skinlf pkg and neither of both in l2fprod-common anyway.
Any update here?
No, currently not.
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.3-1.fc10.src.rpm New version - no other changes were needed to get this working.
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.3-2.fc11.src.rpm Changes in the l2fprod-common package made it necessary to adapt the path of one dependency. --- As an update to the legal blocker: - l2fprod-common now good - skinlf still incompatible ...both have the same upstream and I'm positive that all issues will be fixed (i.e. upstream prefers ASL 2.0 but didn't apply the changes to this new license everywhere yet) - but upstream isn't very responsive and seems not to have enough time to quickly fix this.
Please clear the whiteboard if this becomes ready for review in the future.
Would you update the status of this bug?
Unfortunately, there is no update - i.e. upstream stopped to response. Didn't try to get in contact with upstream in quite a while though and will do so a last time right now.
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.4-1.fc11.src.rpm New version - no other changes were needed to get this working. As for the legal blocker: - upstream changed skinlf to be ASL 2.0 _only_ in CVS - mycae updates the skinlf pkg in Fedora to the latest CVS revision - new skinlf pkg in rawhide and updates-testing, not yet in updates - I will wait with pushing tvbrowser to updates until the new skinlf pkg has landed there - I Require the latest skinlf pkg version for tvbrowser
Lifting FE-Legal, as this is resolved in rawhide (at least).
Well I checked the latest rawhide skinlf source and skinlf CVS repository, however the following files are still under ASL 1.1 (total: 10 files) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/SkinLookAndFeel.java src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/Window.java src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/impl/AbstractSkinProgress.java src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/impl/gtk/parser/*.java -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the pointer, Mamoru. I notified skinlf's upstream and skinlf's pkg maintainer about this issue and will keep in touch with both to resolve this. As soon as everything's ASL 2.0, I'll update the status here.
ASL 2.0 only version of skinlf is about to hit Fedora (see bug 524784). With this step we should be ready to bring tvbrowser into Fedora...and it only took us a little over one year! ;) Who's up for the formal review? :)
While I don't know I can review tvbrowser soon (as I have some other review requests assigned to myself), - first of all I want to recheck skinlf src/binary - and would you recheck your tvbrowser srpm and upload the new one if there is something you want to modify?
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.4-2.fc12.src.rpm Only some little changes have been made to improve the spec. Also a patch was extended because of the change to jakarta-commons-compress 1.0 (the patch went into that direction before with another j-c-c version change).
Umm.... Again sorry to raise license question, however: This time from mock build (koji scratch build result: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1870124 ) I tried to check the licenses of rpms listed as BuildRequires and its dependencies, then: ----------------------------------------------------------------- bsf-2.4.0-3.fc12 ASL 1.1 jakarta-oro-2.0.8-6.3.fc12 ASL 1.1 xalan-j2-2.7.0-9.5.fc12 ASL 1.1 and ASL 2.0 and W3C xml-commons-resolver-1.1-4.16.fc12 ASL 1.1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Would you explain how these are used? (Especially bsf, jakarta-oro are listed directly as BuildRequires and lib/*.jar contains jars included in these rpms so I guess these 2 rpms are actually used for tvbrowser)
(I guess this is all we have to check for license issue)
PING It's been almost eight months with no progress; This bug should be closed soon if there is no response, shouldn't it?
Due to the lack of response this review is now considered as stalled. I'm closing this bug just as described in Fedora's Policy for stalled package reviews http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 754246 ***