SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dvtm-0.5.1-1.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/dvtm.spec Description: dvtm brings the concept of tiling window management, popularized by X11-window managers like dwm to the console. As a console window manager it tries to make it easy to work with multiple console based programs like vim, mutt, cmus or irssi.
SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dvtm-0.5.1-2.fc10.src.rpm SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/dvtm.spec
Good: + Basename of the SPECE file matches with upstream + Package fullfit naming guidelines + URL tag show on proper project home page + Package contains most recent version of the application + Could download upstream tar ball with spectool -g + Tar ball in packages matches with upstream (md5sum: 15af44198d6a636190480122b8de7155) + Package contains valid license tag + License tag has LGPLV2+ and MIT as valid OSS Licenses + Package contains verbatin copy of the MIT license text + Consistently usage of rpm macros + Proper Buildroot definition + Buildroot will be cleaned on beginning of %clean and %install + Inclused patch is reliable + Local build works fine + Pacmage support SMP build + Rpmlint is quite for source rpm + Rpmlint is quite for binary rpm + Rpmlint is quite for Debuginfo rpm + Koji build works fine + Local install and uninstall works fine + Start of the application works fine. + Files has proper files perrmisions + %files stanza contains no duplicates + Package contains no files which belong to ohter packages + All packaged files are own by this package + %doc stanza is small, so no extra doc subpackage is needed + Package contains proper %Changelog Bad: - Wrong RPM Group. I think the aim of the application is not to emulate an other OS or system. - Sources contains no copyright notes. Please notify upstream to fix this issue. - Package only contains verbatin license text for the MIT license - Debuginfo package contains no sources - Package doesn't honor RPM_OPT_FLAGS
sent mail to author regarding request to put a license txt file for LGPLv2 and include license blocker. - Wrong RPM Group. I think the aim of the application is not to emulate an other OS or system. Fixed. - Debuginfo package contains no sources Fixed. - Package doesn't honour RPM_OPT_FLAGS Fixed. http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/dvtm.spec http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dvtm-0.5.1-2.fc10.src.rpm
Reply from author: ======================================================================== Hi, Rakesh Pandit schrieb: > Hello Mat, > > I am packaging dvtm for fedora: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499993 > > There are some issues which I need to address before this gets accepted: > 1. The source files don't have license header information. I personally don't want to clutter all files with a license header which is almost as long as the code. > 2. The package just contains LICENSE file for MIT license not LGPLv2. Site mentions project is under both licenses .. so a copy of later will help. dvtm as whole is MIT/X11 the madtty.{c,h} files are LGPL. I think it's common for distros to have the full license text under something like /usr/share/common-licenses I therfore see no need to include it in the source tarball. See the following link for how debian handles it: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/dvtm/dvtm_0.5.1-2/dvtm.copyright Regards, Marc -- Marc Andre Tanner >< http://www.brain-dump.org/ >< GPG key: CF7D56C0 =======================================================================
I don't think these license issues are blocker. Fixed license field: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/dvtm.spec http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dvtm-0.5.1-3.fc10.src.rpm
ping ?:) Thanks for review, bit impatient!
Good: + Debuginfo package contains sources Bad: - Package contains no verbatin copy the the LGPL licensed parts - CC doesn't honour the RRM_OPT_FLAGS + CFLAGS='-O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic' + make -j2 dvtm build options: cleaning CC dvtm.c CFLAGS = -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic -std=c99 -Os -I. -I/usr/include -I/usr/local/i nclude -DVERSION="0.5.1" -DNDEBUG -DCONFIG_MOUSE -DCONFIG_STATUSBAR LDFLAGS = -L/usr/lib -L/usr/local/lib -lc -lutil -lncursesw CC = cc CC madtty.c dvtm.c: In function 'draw_border': dvtm.c:457: warning: 's' may be used uninitialized in this function bstack.c: In function 'bstack': bstack.c:3: warni
As in comment#4 upstream refused to add LGPLv2 copy .. so I have put in one. Regarding second issue .. in actual the CC dvtm.c and CC madtty.c where actually using CFLAGS but echo in Makefile was wrong .. I have fixed it and updated. Done http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dvtm-0.5.1-4.fc10.src.rpm http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/dvtm.spec %changelog * Thu Jun 04 2009 Rakesh Pandit <rakesh> 0.5.1-4 - Updated Makefile patch to echo current execution lines for - dvtm.c and madtty.c and added LGPLv2 txt file Thanks,
In general, if upstream not provide the verbatin copy of the license you don't need to put your own release of a copy into the package.
Okay .. I will remove it .. but I don't think it is bad to keep it there .. rather good. So, is it approved? Or some other issue to fix?
http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dvtm-0.5.1-5.fc10.src.rpm http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/dvtm.spec
Good: + Patch seems reliable + Proper RPM group + Package honour RPM_OPT_FLAGS Bad: - No verbatin copy of the LGPL (no blocker) Your package is APPROVED
Thanks :) New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dvtm Short Description: Tiling window management for the console Owners: rakesh Branches: F-9 F-10 F-11 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
FYI, we haven't used or paid any attention to "Cvextras Commits" for some time now. CVS done.
dvtm-0.5.1-5.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dvtm-0.5.1-5.fc9
dvtm-0.5.1-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dvtm-0.5.1-5.fc10
dvtm-0.5.1-5.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dvtm-0.5.1-5.fc11
dvtm-0.5.1-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
dvtm-0.5.1-5.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
dvtm-0.5.1-5.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: dvtm New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 Owners: maxamillion I have contacted Rakesh Pandit and verified that Rakesh has no interest in maintaining dvtm for EPEL. I would like to take maintainership of it. Thank you.
cvs done.
dvtm-0.5.2-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dvtm-0.5.2-2.el5
dvtm-0.5.2-2.el4 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 4. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dvtm-0.5.2-2.el4
dvtm-0.5.2-2.el4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 4 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
dvtm-0.5.2-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: dvtm New Branches: el6 Owners: maxamillion Not sure what happened, but dvtm appears to have been missed during the mass branch for EPEL6. -AdamM
Git done (by process-git-requests).