Bug 839740 - Review Request: crrcsim-addon-models - Addon models for Crrcsim
Summary: Review Request: crrcsim-addon-models - Addon models for Crrcsim
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Miroslav Lichvar
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 832524
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-07-12 17:30 UTC by Damian Wrobel
Modified: 2013-07-23 01:15 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0-2.fc19
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-07-23 01:10:46 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mlichvar: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
mail regarding license (2.36 KB, text/plain)
2013-02-21 16:53 UTC, Damian Wrobel
no flags Details
mail regarding license (3.27 KB, text/plain)
2013-06-20 15:24 UTC, Damian Wrobel
no flags Details
license confirmation (from Jan Reucker) (2.28 KB, text/plain)
2013-06-26 21:17 UTC, Damian Wrobel
no flags Details
license confirmation (from Arthur Frenslich) (2.05 KB, text/plain)
2013-06-26 21:21 UTC, Damian Wrobel
no flags Details

Description Damian Wrobel 2012-07-12 17:30:43 UTC
Spec URL: http://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SPECS/crrcsim-addon-models.spec
SRPM URL: http://dwrobel.fedorapeople.org/projects/rpmbuild/SRPMS/crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
Description: Addon models for Crrcsim

Fedora Account System Username: dwrobel

rpmlint: 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Comment 1 Miroslav Lichvar 2013-01-28 19:24:56 UTC
I did just a quick check. The tarball doesn't seem to contain or mention the license. Can you please ask upstream to fix this or to confirm the licensing and include the mail in the package?

Comment 2 Damian Wrobel 2013-01-28 20:05:11 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)

I've asked upstream about that: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3602436&group_id=8823&atid=358823

Comment 3 Damian Wrobel 2013-02-21 16:53:31 UTC
Created attachment 700667 [details]
mail regarding license

I got a reply from author of the zip file, but I'm not quite sure whether it's satisfactory.

Comment 4 Miroslav Lichvar 2013-02-21 17:10:58 UTC
Hm, I think we would need to get a list of all authors whose work is included in that zip and get a statement from all of them.

Tom, can you please confirm that?

Comment 5 Tom "spot" Callaway 2013-06-18 02:42:04 UTC
Sorry for the delay in response. Yes, we would need the list of authors and then confirm the individual licensing with each of them.

Comment 6 Damian Wrobel 2013-06-20 15:24:54 UTC
Created attachment 763494 [details]
mail regarding license

Please find attached an answer from the author. Is it helpful?

Comment 7 Tom "spot" Callaway 2013-06-20 15:59:11 UTC
No, since he is not the creator of those files, he can't just make them "free".

We need to know who owns the copyright on each of those files and then, we need to ask each of those people what the license terms are.

Comment 8 Damian Wrobel 2013-06-20 17:47:22 UTC
> No, since he is not the creator of those files

Locking only inside the files we're finally installing (as the rest of them are already installed by the crrcsim package) gives the information about two authors:
Jan Reucker and Arthur Frenslich.

I've emailed to both of them. Jan redirected me to Arthur which didn't raise any objections.

$ grep author $(rpm -ql crrcsim-addon-models) | grep -v CRRCSim  | grep -v "Jan Reucker" | grep -v "Arthur Frenslich"

Returns empty list.

Comment 9 Tom "spot" Callaway 2013-06-20 18:40:43 UTC
Okay. We just need these two people to confirm their licenses. I might suggest CC-BY if they have no preference.

Comment 10 Damian Wrobel 2013-06-26 21:17:55 UTC
Created attachment 765805 [details]
license confirmation (from Jan Reucker)

Comment 11 Damian Wrobel 2013-06-26 21:21:09 UTC
Created attachment 765806 [details]
license confirmation (from Arthur Frenslich)

Please confirm if it would be enough to attach those emails to the SRPM package + copy of the CC-BY license file?

Comment 12 Tom "spot" Callaway 2013-06-26 21:44:16 UTC
Yes, add them as SOURCE files, then make sure they're included in %doc. Lifting FE-Legal.

Comment 14 Miroslav Lichvar 2013-07-09 16:03:46 UTC
The package looks good. Approved.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
     The licensing was clarified by email, which is included in %doc.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
     It includes the CC-BY license.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.

Source checksums
----------------
http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/crrcsim/crrcsim-addon-models/crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9755933554235359435f1b0963a24c173df5d1b9c89b72c84db53da088bd7166
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9755933554235359435f1b0963a24c173df5d1b9c89b72c84db53da088bd7166
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5138a74ac20f2965d97b2a9c35219ca74e24f4a93618b33f0e36e4b3c7873197
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5138a74ac20f2965d97b2a9c35219ca74e24f4a93618b33f0e36e4b3c7873197

Comment 15 Damian Wrobel 2013-07-09 19:01:21 UTC
Miroslav, thank you for the review.


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: crrcsim-addon-models
Short Description: Addon models for Crrcsim
Owners: dwrobel
Branches: f18 f19
InitialCC:

Comment 16 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-07-10 03:29:43 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2013-07-10 15:55:17 UTC
crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0-2.fc19

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2013-07-10 15:55:28 UTC
crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0-2.fc18

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2013-07-12 03:02:12 UTC
crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2013-07-23 01:10:46 UTC
crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2013-07-23 01:15:16 UTC
crrcsim-addon-models-0.2.0-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.


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