Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/gfan.spec SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/gfan-0.3-1.fc9.src.rpm Description: The software computes all marked reduced Gröbner bases of an ideal. Their union is a universal Gröbner basis. Gfan contains algorithms for computing this complex for general ideals and specialized algorithms for tropical curves, tropical hypersurfaces and tropical varieties of prime ideals. In addition to the above core functions the package contains many tools which are useful in the study of Gröbner bases, initial ideals and tropical geometry. Among these are an interactive traversal program for Gröbner fans and programs for graphical renderings.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=993871
New URLs: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/gfan.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/gfan-0.3-2.fc9.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=994565
Some notes: * License - The license tag should be "GPL+" as no version is specified - However LICENSE (and also README) file also says that files under doc/ are non-free. Please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code and remove all files under doc/ from the source tarball completely. - Include LICENSE file as %doc as this is important. * CFLAGS - I guess ------------------------------------------------------------- export CFLAGS="%{optflags}" export CXXFLAGS="%{optflags}" ------------------------------------------------------------- is not needed.
Fixed; see: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/gfan.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/gfan-0.3-3.fc9.src.rpm Sorry for the delay. However, LICENSE only says this: """ The manual for Gfan is NOT distributed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. The manual may be freely redistributed but is not allowed to be changed. The manual may be removed from the software package. """ Does that violate Fedora guidelines? I don't think so. (But I have removed doc/ from the srpm as per your advice anyways.)
Okay. ---------------------------------------------------------- This package (gfan) is APPROVED by mtasaka ---------------------------------------------------------- (In reply to comment #4) > However, LICENSE only says this: > """ > The manual for Gfan is NOT distributed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. > The manual may be freely redistributed but is not allowed to be changed. > The manual may be removed from the software package. > """ > > Does that violate Fedora guidelines? I don't think so. "The manual is not allowed to be changed" is definitely non-free, so this part cannot be in Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > However, LICENSE only says this: > > """ > > The manual for Gfan is NOT distributed under the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. > > The manual may be freely redistributed but is not allowed to be changed. > > The manual may be removed from the software package. > > """ > > > > Does that violate Fedora guidelines? I don't think so. > > "The manual is not allowed to be changed" is definitely non-free, > so this part cannot be in Fedora: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ """ Does Fedora permit anything under "Non-Free" licensing? When it comes to software or fonts, the answer is definitely no. We strongly prefer that items classified as content (see Code Vs Content) are under a Free license, but we only require that they be freely distributable without restrictions. """ I think a manual is content as opposed to code and therefore freely distributable is ok.
(In reply to comment #6) > I think a manual is content as opposed to code and therefore freely > distributable is ok. I hate this loophole. I really really really do. Can you ask upstream if we can have permission to make derived works of the manual?
(For those too lazy to read above: the current state of the package is that we are *not* shipping the manual.) I will ask upstream to put something in their LICENSE about allowing derived works for the manual. If they insist upon not allowing derived works, I take it you (spot) would prefer we not ship the manual?
Oh, and because it is freely redistributable, is it ok to *not* cull this from the upstream tarball at each release (just remove it in %prep)?
Created attachment 328805 [details] Email Body This is the body of the email query I sent to Gfan's author.
(In reply to comment #9) > Oh, and because it is freely redistributable, is it ok to *not* cull this from > the upstream tarball at each release (just remove it in %prep)? Yes. There is no need to hack up the upstream tarball to remove this. I'd really prefer we didn't ship the manual. I'm thinking seriously about closing this loophole with FESCo.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: gfan Short Description: Software for Computing Gröbner Fans and Tropical Varieties Owners: konradm Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC:
Oh, just kidding -- I didn't notice you changed the review flag back to '?'.
Okay, I re-approve this package.
Thanks!
This is still blocking FE_LEGAL. Spot: should this be oked now? Or is it waiting pending something further?
(In reply to comment #16) > This is still blocking FE_LEGAL. > Spot: should this be oked now? Or is it waiting pending something further? Conrad, did you remove the manual from the package (not the tarball)?
(In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #16) > > This is still blocking FE_LEGAL. > > Spot: should this be oked now? Or is it waiting pending something further? > > Conrad, did you remove the manual from the package (not the tarball)? Yup. (Went back to using the original (not-stripped) tarball though.)
(In reply to comment #18) > (In reply to comment #17) > > (In reply to comment #16) > > > This is still blocking FE_LEGAL. > > > Spot: should this be oked now? Or is it waiting pending something further? > > > > Conrad, did you remove the manual from the package (not the tarball)? > > Yup. (Went back to using the original (not-stripped) tarball though.) Lifting FE-Legal then. :)
cvs done.
Please submit push request also for F-9 on bodhi.
(In reply to comment #21) > Please submit push request also for F-9 on bodhi. When I tried to submit updates on bodhi I kept getting 500 server errors. I'll try again.
Ok, bodhi thinks that "gfan-0.3-3.fc9 update already exists!" But it doesn't show up in the list nor do searches show anything.
(In reply to comment #23) > Ok, bodhi thinks that "gfan-0.3-3.fc9 update already exists!" But it doesn't > show up in the list nor do searches show anything. I see this issue (I tried to submit gfan 0.3-3.fc9 updates request and got the same error). CCing to Toshio. Would you examine what is happening?
The bodhi issue should be fixed. There was a stray PackageBuild lying around, without the corresponding PackageUpdate. You should be able to re-submit it without problems.
Thanks.
Okay, now this review request is closed.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gfan New Branches: EL-5 Owners: tremble Fedora owner not interested in EL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574081