Comment # 5
from Paul Howarth
(In reply to comment #3) > For elldata it should be clear the source is GPL and the author > is very active in sagemath development at least, but the other > pari- packages may need further investigation. For example, there > is no license information about the original data at > http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/staff/J.E.Cremona/ftp/data/INDEX.html I found something regarding the Echidna algorithms upon which the seadata file is based (http://echidna.maths.usyd.edu.au/kohel/alg/index.html): "This page hosts links to code and documentation in areas related to research in number theory and arithmetic geometry developed in association with research in this area, and made available under the GNU Public License version 2 or higher (see GPL) and the GNU Free Documentation License (see FDL), respectively" Can't find any information about how the galdata file was produced but I don't see any reason not to trust that upstream is entitled to publish it under the terms of the GPL. > Only issue I see now is that it should have a "Requires: pari-gp" > for proper resolution of dependencies. Can't do that as it would lead to a circular build dependency for pari itself, and it's also conceivable that other software could use the same data without requiring pari-gp. I did add a "Conflicts: pari-gp < 2.2.11" as that's the oldest version that can use this data, though perhaps that should be "pari" rather than "pari-gp"? (In reply to comment #4) > - Shipping the *.asc sig seems pretty meaningless to me. I just see it being used as an extra check that the tarball hasn't changed, (if we keep the signature in git) given that upstream's releases aren't versioned. An aid to the package maintainer or anyone doing a downstream rebuild rather than anything else. > - I personally, would encourage you to use use %{?dist} in the %release tag. > Sure, it's not mandatory and not using it helps avoiding rebuilds, if a > package's contents doesn't change between Fedora/RHEL releases, however it > also makes packages vulnerable to changes in rpm and to the file system > layout between releases (A CentOS5's xxx-*.rpm is something entirely > different than a Fedora 18's xxx-*.rpm, even though it's NEVR are identical). Good point; I'd thought this package was a classic example of something that wouldn't need a dist tag and could be inherited between releases without being rebuilt but given the changes in rpm signature and compression formats over the last few years, the dist tag is still useful even when the package content is completely unchanged, so I've added on for the -3 release. > - I would recommend to use "install -m xxx" instead of "mkdir + cp" in > %install. > This helps to avoid bad surprizes related to ownership/permissions/umasks. It's a bit awkward to do "install" recursively so instead I added a %{_fixperms} after the copy to ensure that the built package's permissions were sane.
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