Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: fedora-release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225746 ------- Additional Comments From jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 16:39 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Partial review: > > BLOCKERS: > * No upstream tarball to compare with included tarball (MUST item) Fedora is the upstream for this, our preferred method of distribution is srpm. For this reason there is no "upstream" tarball. I do believe there are guidelines being proposed to make this acceptable. > * Version of source (6) doesn't match package version (6.90) This has already been fixed. > * Description field is the same as summary field. How is this a blocker? > * Licensing is quite varied and contradictory: > - The License field mentions GFDL, while no mention of such a license exists > in the tarball contents. I changed this to GPL > - The tarball contains a copy of GPL, while no file in the package is actually > licensed under the GPL either. The eula.py file is GPL now. > - The license for the program "eula.py" is not mentioned in its header, making > it proprietary software. Fixed this. > - The file "README-Accessibility" in the package says "Copyright © 2003 by > Red Hat, Inc." (no mention of license, free or not) This file isn't packaged anymore, removing it. > - The file "eula.txt" in the package says "Copyright (C) 2003, 2004, 2005, > 2006 Fedora Project. All rights reserved." (definitely not free) and also > mentions a few trademarks. > * The file "eula.txt" mentions weird things: > - It says there is something called "Fedora Core". What is that? ;-) > - It talks about "Fedora Core 6". But it's for "Fedora 7 test-something" or > "Fedora Rawhide" or something. > - It says that "The end user license agreement for each component is located > in the component's source code." Rarely true. Instead, the source code > usually contains a copyright license (like the GPL, which free software > usually has), not an end user license agreement (which proprietary software > usually has). > - It says that except "certain image files containing the Fedora trademark", > the license terms allow one to "[...] modify, and redistribute the > component". Not always true, considering packages that are only > "Distributable". Not always true because of Section 5 either. > - It talks about a package named "anaconda-images", which does not exist in > Fedora anymore. > - In its Section 5, it requires things from users in Pakistan and basically > asks them to "represent and warrant" that they will not help their > neighbor[ing countries] and ask the US government for > permission for giving a copy of the software (parts of which he may have > written himself) to his friend, among other things. > - I totally prefer licenses that say "You are not required to accept this > License, since you have not signed it" (from GPL clause 5), instead of those > who say "By downloading, installing or using the Software, User agrees to > the terms of this agreement." Who has written this anyway? ;-) > - /me escapes > I'm not touching the eula.txt. This comes straight from our Legal team. Best bring it up to the Fedora Advisory Board and have it be an item to discuss with Legal. > SUGGESTIONS: > * "fedora-release-6" or a part of it could become a macro. At the minimum could > be replace with "%{name}-6". > * Use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc > * Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share Too much of our stuff is hardcoded to depend on these things being in /etc, it doesn't make sense to macroize it in the spec. > * Use "cp -p" and "install -p" instead of "cp" and "install" everywhere Fixed (use install -d instead of mkdir) > * Use "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" instead of "%defattr(-,root,root)" Fixed. http://people.redhat.com/jkeating/fedora-release.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review