[Bug 509158] Review Request: gnat-project-common – files shared by Ada libraries

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509158





--- Comment #3 from Björn Persson <bjorn at xn--rombobjrn-67a.se>  2009-07-02 12:54:03 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)

Thanks for your comments, Jochen. I have fixed some of your points but I have
questions on some others:

> - Because the package should be fedora specific, it should be named as
>   fedora-gnat-...

Fixed (but it looks like I can't update the title of this review request).

> - Source tag contains not a fully qualified URI. Submitter should create
>   a project on fedorahosted.org

Done.

> - Could not check packaged tar ball agains upstream.
> - Package doesn#t contains a URL tag

Tarballs will be at
https://fedorahosted.org/released/fedora-gnat-project-common/.

> - License tag say 'Copyright only' this is not a valid OSS license

"Copyright only" is listed under Good Licenses at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main. Please explain why you think it
isn't valid.

These files are so small that I don't care much about the license. I'd place
them in the public domain, but as I understand it I can't do that under Swedish
copyright law, so I figured I'd require copyright attribution only and
otherwise let anyone do anything with them.

> - Package contains not a verbatin copy of the license text

common.gpr contains the complete license text:
-- Copyright 2009 B. Persson, Bjorn at Rombobeorn.se
-- No restrictions are placed on this code.

> - Pleace use %{_sysconfdir} instead of /etc in the %files stanza

Fixed.

> - you should use a version like 0.1 instead of 1, because I'm assume
>   your are the upstream and this is the first release of the software

Yes, I am upstream and this is the first release, but I don't understand what's
wrong with the version number. Version 1 means it's the first version, which is
what it is. The package is too small to have major and minor version numbers,
so if I need to change something I'll release version 2. What's the problem?

> - Package has no proper BuildRoot definition

Could you please explain why a buildroot definition is still needed? I'm not
planning to package this for anything older than Fedora 10, so any buildroot I
define will be ignored and %_topdir/BUILDROOT will be used instead.


Before I upload a new package I want to understand why you think the version
number is wrong.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.