[Bug 225746] Merge Review: fedora-release

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at redhat.com  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.