Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509160 --- Comment #9 from David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-25 17:51:00 EST --- First, here are some initial impressions after reading the spec file and looking over the code. First, regarding the package name. Fedora naming conventions are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines Comment 1 correctly notes that there are issues with using an underscore in package names. On the other hand, comment 2 has a reasonable rationale for the name the way it is. I re-read the naming guidelines, which specifically say: "When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project name from which this software came.... it is possible that the upstream name does not fall into the Common Character Set . If this is the case, refer to: When Upstream Naming is outside of the specified character set... The maintainer must NOT use an underscore '_', a plus '+', or a period '.' as a delimiter... packages where the upstream name naturally contains an underscore are excluded from this." Some may disagree with me, but I think this use of "_" is acceptable, because it is part of the upstream name, just like it is in "tcp_wrappers". It's weird that it doesn't touch %{SOURCE3} during %prep or %build. it only shows up in %install. I would expect that to be copied into the build areas during %prep, then copy it out during %install. By the time you hit %install I expect that only the files in the build would be read from, and that writes would generally only write to (install to) the buildroot. That could be a real issue if rpmbuild were modified in the future to enforce that... could you change it? There are no official Ada-specific guidelines for Fedora, so I obviously can't refer to them. I did peek at the Debian Ada policy, which isn't formally required by Fedora but I thought might be helpful: http://people.debian.org/~lbrenta/debian-ada-policy.html However, the technical guidelines from that document focuses on creating libraries, which isn't relevant here. Although there's no separate licensing file, it's REALLY obvious that it's GPL'ed once you look at the code. *EVERY* .ads (spec) and .adb (body) created by a human (ignoring b~mine_detector* which is auto-generated) has this boilerplate: -- This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under -- terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software -- Foundation; version 2. The project file "mine_detector.gpr" says: -- This is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under -- terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software -- Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version. However, "mine_detector.gpr" is not from the distributed tarball (and doesn't have code anyway), so I think it'd be safer to simply label the license as "GPLv2", since that's what the code files say. So I guess I'll retract my comment in comment 8. In this case, the licensing is NOT unclear, it's just that the license file isn't there as a separate file. In this case, Fedora applicable policy is that "If the source package does not include the text of the license(s), the packager should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake." Have you encouraged them to correct this mistake, and re-release a version with an included license file? You don't have to wait til they do so, just simply make the request. I'm glad to see that there's a .desktop file. Great! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review