On 04.05.2009 10:29, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: Fixed, not sure where that access bit came from. Maybe an accidental mouse click or something like that. Yeah, it could be called a fork; but the end result is apart from s/fedora/generic/ for -logos, -release and -release-notes identical to a Fedora where you install the packages later. See note in the bug -- I shouldn't have used "RPM Fusion" in the name when using the kickstart files. Files renamed on the server. CU thl

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588 --- Comment #1 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; 2009-05-04 10:47:44 --- Shouldn't this package be named rpmfusion-spin-kickstarts or spin-kickstarts-rpmfusion? In the latter case the kickstart files could go to the same dir where the spin-kickstarts files are. -- 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=588 --- Comment #3 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-05-04 11:23:52 --- (In reply to comment #0) One note: Those are experimental and not meant for wider distribution or use. And I didn't two errors when creating them - have RPM Fusion in the filenames - not at a "experimental" tag I changed the files names on the server, but the stuff still calls itself "RPM_Fusion" when you boot it. I'll fix that with the next build (uploading takes quite a while, so I'd like to avoid that just for a name change). -- 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=588 Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |3 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; 2009-05-10 21:38:46 --- - "URL: http://rpmfusion.org/spin-kickstarts" doesn't exist - s/remixes/remix/ seems to make sense to me because of "spin" not "spins" - You are aware about, that the licensing is not just done by putting a licensing file somewhere? At source code, the code itself e.g. needs to mention the licensing or another file such as readme has to clarify the overall licensing - as far as I got told by spot. Given that this here is only a bunch of configuration files, I'm seeing it relaxed, just as note. - "License: GPLv2+" vs. shipping GPLv3 is legally okay, but is it intended? - Files are put into %{_datadir}/%{name} currently, I assume you already have checked, whether there's maybe a common directory which not including the package name? Or was it intended to use %{name} rather something else? - You might want to explain in a comment how the versioning works as you do not ship a tarball, just a few words (looks like you now depend on spin- kickstarts versioning?) -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2009-05-14 05:26:27 --- I hope you mean GPLv3+. Version 3 is unlikely to be the last version of the GPL, it's just the latest one. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588 --- Comment #8 from Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; 2009-05-16 19:59:14 --- (In reply to comment #0) This seems to be still a valid question to me. Any ideas from the others? -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588 --- Comment #10 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-05-17 14:06:17 --- (In reply to comment #9) FWIW, I have no strong option, but I more and more tend to say: let's put it into the nonfree repo, because the result of what this is building has nonfree packages available. Alternate solution: Provide rpmfusion-free-remix-kickstarts and rpmfusion-nonfree-remix-kickstarts; the later package mainly could just include the kickstart files from the former and add the nonfree repo. Can't really follow the "Hence I believe..." part. rpmfusion-nonfree-release makes nonfree package available to the system and hence is in the nonfree repo, even if it itself is free. I think this is a good thing, as it makes it obvious "you are crossing a line here", which IMHO is needed, as you might violate licenses (like "non-commercial" clauses) if you blindly use stuff from the nonfree repo. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588 --- Comment #12 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-05-17 14:50:33 --- (In reply to comment #11) Just FYI, the name of the resulting ISO is not defined by the contents of this package. The users has to specify one when calling livecd-creator -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588 --- Comment #14 from Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-05-18 18:40:55 --- I replied to this yesterday but for some reason it didn't show up. Let me retry: (In reply to comment #10) Similarly, I can't follow the "hence is in the nonfree repo..." conclusion. IMHO this package (rpmfusion-nonfree-release) can even go to Fedora. Yes it does allow one to download/install nonfree bits to the computer. But so does Firefox, *torrent, openssh-clients, and many other packages in Fedora. Anyway, I guess that not many people think about this my way. I don't want to taint the review request more. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588 Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #16 from Robert Scheck <rpmfusion-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de&gt; 2009-05-22 02:04:28 --- [ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-10-x86_64/result/rpmfusion-free-remix-kickstarts-* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ [ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption [ OK ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [ OK ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [ OK ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc [ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [ N/A ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [ N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line [ N/A ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker [ OK ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory [ OK ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [ OK ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content [ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [ OK ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present [ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [21] [ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package [ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [ N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [ OK ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time [ OK ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Looks good, thus: APPROVED. -- 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.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=588 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | Status|ASSIGNED |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #18 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-05-22 18:32:50 --- imported and built; will upload rpmfusion-nonfree-remix-kickstarts for review soon -- 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.