http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |atorkhov(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-10 11:46:09 --- Will this package be actually useful without Nalimov's code? And does it contain tablebases? Why can't this package go to Fedora? It has the following text in COPYING: """" As I understand the GPL, it basically means you can distribute Scid freely, and may modify it, but any modifications you make must also be made freely available as source code under the terms of the GPL. """" So, basically it's GPL. It should be asked on fedora-legal list is it acceptable in Fedora. Also, license on scid/bases, scid/books and scid/sounds should be clarified. And it doesn't install scid/bases, is it desired? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #3 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-10 13:20:57 --- Ok, thanks for explanations. Could you ask fedora-legal about Nalimov code? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #5 from Mikhail Kalenkov <Mikhail.Kalenkov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-10 20:47:40 --- (In reply to comment #4) Updated SPEC - http://katrine.lpi.ru/kalenkov/fusion/scid.spec SRPM - http://katrine.lpi.ru/kalenkov/fusion/scid-3.7.0-0.2.beta3.fc10.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #7 from Mikhail Kalenkov <Mikhail.Kalenkov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-19 16:29:55 --- Does something blocking the review process? Please let me know. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #9 from Mikhail Kalenkov <Mikhail.Kalenkov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-20 21:10:32 --- (In reply to comment #8) You are right, I am not a Fedora contributor. It is something new for me. I read guidelines throughout and carefully wrote a spec file. I thought that it was enough. Anyway I will see what I can do. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #11 from Mikhail Kalenkov <Mikhail.Kalenkov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-01-30 20:31:37 --- (In reply to comment #1) Unfortunately I didn't received any response from Eugene Nalimov. That's why fedora-legal decision was obvious: =================== We should not ship Eugene's code. We have no permission. =================== But Nalimov code can be distributed with scid, because scid developers obtained permissions many years ago. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #13 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-04-03 05:36:05 --- Corrections: (In reply to comment #12) uild will pick this dependency itself. Should be %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps/ * issue. Should be OPTIMIZE="%{optflags}". Please let me know if you have any questions/comments/objections. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #15 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-06-09 01:10:35 --- (In reply to comment #14) Thanks for the update. I'll try to answer your questions: Yes, and that's the very issue. It wouldn't look nice if you restrict the %description to, say, 30 columns. Would it? So we use 80 columns standard in Fedora and it is good to have consistency between our packages. Please run $ find . -exec file {} \;|grep ASCII|grep -v -e program -e Makefile -e tcl: in the root of the source tree. You will see very many documentation files. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #17 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-06-15 06:26:58 --- Thanks for the update. Here is the rest of the package review: * Please remove the Authors section from %description. It is not our custom to put this information in %description. * %package -n %{name}-sounds %description -n %{name}-sounds %files -n %{name}-sounds can be simplified to %package sounds %description sounds %files sounds Similarly for other subpackages. * The .desktop file carries the Mimetype key. We need to use the scriptlets from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ScriptletSnippets#desktop-database ? Why are %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/books %dir %{_datadir}/%{name}/bases owned by the main package but not by their respective subpackages? (In contrast, the %{_datadir}/%{name}/sounds/ directory is owned by the subpackage.) * The commented out section (lines 124-138) can be removed. Beware though, when you want to use macros in comments and in the changelog, you need to escape them with an extra % ! The line %doc %{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version} can be replaced by %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ Note that you don't need to put an extra %doc when you use %{_docdir} ! Also, I recommend indicating directories in %files sections with a trailing / For instance %{_datadir}/%{name}/data/ ? What is this line for: iconv -f cp1251 -t utf8 tcl/lang/russian.tcl -o tcl/lang/russian.tcl.utf8 && mv -f tcl/lang/russian.tcl.utf8 tcl/lang/russian.tcl You didn't package this. Something missing? * Fedora specific optflags are not used for all compilations. From the build.log: g++ -pipe -Wall -fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -O3 -fstrict-aliasing -fomit-frame-pointer -c -o eval.o eval.cpp gcc -O3 -Wall -fomit-frame-pointer --std=gnu89 -D_GNU_SOURCE -DGNUFUN -c killers.c -o .o/killers.o This needs attention. Do a rpm -E %{optflags} to see what flags need to be passed. Remember that these flags should not be overriden. * There are a few compilation warnings of type src/egtb/tbindex.cpp:1204: warning: format '%d' expects type 'int', but argument 2 has type 'size_t' Please fix them as they might cause problems in 64bit systems. (Replacing %d by %zd should solve it) Don't forget to send the patch upstream and provide a link from their tracker. * Please explain in the SPEC file where Source2: %{name}.png Source3: %{name}.svg come from. Also you could try to upstream them along with Source1: %{name}.desktop I just realized that you don't use Source2 anywhere. Did you miss something? * It appears to me that the help/ directory is worth putting in %doc * Also please include the doc files in src/egtb/ in %doc ? What is all that stuff it the pocket/ directory? Don't we want them? ! Please remove the directory src/zlib in %prep to make sure we are not using it. * %global is preferred over %define according to the new guidelines. * TCL packaging guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Tcl tell us that we must use Requires: tcl(abi) = 8.5 to indicate which Tcl version they were built against. ? You define these %{!?tcl_sitearch: %define tcl_sitearch %{_libdir}/tcl%{tcl_version}} %{!?tcl_sitelib: %define tcl_sitelib %{_datadir}/tcl%{tcl_version}} but you don't use them at all. I am a little confused here. TCL guidelines tell us to use %{tcl_sitelib} as datadir, but you use SHAREDIR=%{_datadir}/%{name} in the SPEC file. Is this what you are supposed to do? If yes, can't we remove the above two lines from the SPEC file? Now about the license: * You say in comment #6 that scid/books/Performance.bin and scid/books/varied.bin are freely redistributable. (they are otherwise non-free because they are not modifiable, are they?) We need to indicate this in the license tag by adding "freely redistributable". * Nalimov's code is distributable only in Scid, so we need to add something like "distributable only in Scid" to the license tag. * The final license tag will then be something like License: GPLv2+ and freely redistributable and distributable only in Scid Also please explain briefly with comments next to the license tag what files belong to each group. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #19 from Mikhail Kalenkov <Mikhail.Kalenkov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-06-17 13:19:42 --- (In reply to comment #17) Sorry, I forgot to reply to your question. I did it intentionally. I thought that third party packages may keep their files in books and bases directories. The same applies for %{_datadir}/%{name}/photos directory. This directory is empty, because chess player photos are not distributed with scid tarball, but I built several packages with historic and contemporary players which keep their files in %{_datadir}/%{name}/photos directory. sounds directory couldn't extended in the same manner because scid hasn't such functionality. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #21 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-06-17 22:01:20 --- (In reply to comment #18) I think this is the best we could do. You could ask upstream why they are not honoring the flags defined by OPTIMIZE variable for the compilation of these files. I think that you are right. These are the only documentation regarding Nalimov's code but they are not meant to be useful by end users. I leave the inclusion of these documents up to you. Actually, this is a good question and something that I missed during the review. The license tag is inherited from the parent package. You only have to define the license tag in a subpackage if it is different from the parent's. Now, correct me if I'm wrong: In this case, - the main package is "GPLv2+ and distributable only in Scid" - sounds and bases packages are "GPLv2+" - books package is "GPL+ and freely distributable" Please verify the GPL versions above and update the license tags accordingly. (In reply to comment #20) Thanks! This patch is upstreamable. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #23 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-06-18 09:20:42 --- (In reply to comment #22) No, that is a BSD style license which is *compatible* with GPL [1]. That code ends up in the final scid executable. GPL is stricter than BSD and the stricter license wins [2]. The scid authors decided to link this BSD code to GPL code and they have the right to do so because of the GPL-compatibility. The resulting file will be GPL. Well, GPLv2+ in this case. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Good_Licenses [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ#How_should_I_handle_multiple... -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #25 from Mikhail Kalenkov <Mikhail.Kalenkov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-06-20 14:43:23 --- (In reply to comment #17) SPEC - http://katrine.lpi.ru/kalenkov/fusion/scid.spec SRPM - http://katrine.lpi.ru/kalenkov/fusion/scid-3.7.3-9.fc11.src.rpm I have rebuilt scid with upstream SVG icon. Currently I package icon as separate source file (%{SOURCE2}). With the next scid release I will replace %{SOURCE2} by the path to SVG icon in scid tarball. file-not-utf8, wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding and egtb patches was accepted by upstream (by not yet applied). -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #27 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-10-09 00:47:55 --- ping, any progress here? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=310 --- Comment #29 from Alexey Torkhov <atorkhov(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-10-12 12:51:22 --- (In reply to comment #28) I don't think this is true. You seem to well match standard of fedora and rpmfusion contributor. Bad that procedure stuck at sponsoring step. Everything else looks fine for me: fine spec and interested to maintain packager. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.