I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:46:03 -0500 Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
Please file an infrastructure ticket (for tracking/logging purposes) and we can get it removed.
kevin
That really should be a releng ticket not an infrastructure one.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 06:47:36 -0500, Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us wrote:
That really should be a releng ticket not an infrastructure one.
I have filed the following ticket for this issue: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5124
Thanks.
On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply.
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply.
Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibi...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply.
Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibi...
Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items.
Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply.
Yes, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibi...
Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk9d7QkACgkQkSxm47BaWffvXQCdEKN9d0P8pl+UKPRiTRNUDoPc Rj8AmQGNcKVwqVkMX4C82RCw1t8qyO0E =/9AT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those?
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it wrote:
Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply.
Yes, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibi...
Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk9d7QkACgkQkSxm47BaWffvXQCdEKN9d0P8pl+UKPRiTRNUDoPc Rj8AmQGNcKVwqVkMX4C82RCw1t8qyO0E =/9AT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those?
If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.
-J
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:21:52 -0500, Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it wrote:
And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those?
If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.
Does that cover GPL binaries where we are sure we have the specific source versions that correspond to the binaries?
For example pdf files, which I suspect might have been created from odt files, but I am not sure I can get the versions of the odt files that match the included pdf files?
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:21:52 -0500, Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it wrote:
And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those?
If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.
Does that cover GPL binaries where we are sure we have the specific source versions that correspond to the binaries?
For example pdf files, which I suspect might have been created from odt files, but I am not sure I can get the versions of the odt files that match the included pdf files?
IANAL but I would call the odt "source code" and the pdf "binary" but just use the term "documentation" for either. It is not a binary in the sense of "compiled code".
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 18:53:16 +0100, drago01 drago01@gmail.com wrote:
IANAL but I would call the odt "source code" and the pdf "binary" but just use the term "documentation" for either. It is not a binary in the sense of "compiled code".
The GPL requires you to to provide the preferred source code for doing updates. So for PDFs generated from some other source (as opposed directly with a pdf editor) one is arguably required to provide that other source when distrubuting GPL licensed PDFs. (IMO the GPL doesn't really make a good documentation or artwork license.)
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:21 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it wrote:
Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply.
Yes, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibi...
Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items.
And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those?
If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.
-J
So for something that is, say CC-BY-NonCommercial, it would be okay to ship in the SRPM but not in the RPM?
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Martin Erik Werner martinerikwerner@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 12:21 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it wrote:
Il 12/03/2012 13:33, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:38 -0400 Stephen Gallaghersgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-03-12 at 13:01 +0100, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 03/12/2012 03:46 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > I checked in a tarball for egoboo that turned out to have a > non-free (noncommercial restriction) font file in it. The tarball > has only been used for local builds (no scratch-builds). Do I > need to remove this tarball from the lookaside cache? If so how > do I do it? The hash is e6f3130695d297dcd9fe74e50bd59b68.
Does that mean any source tarballs containing non-free content should be repacked by the maintainer even if the source rpm doesn't install/use any of the non-free content? I've been recently commenting on a review where this might apply.
Yes, see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibi...
Also you should neverdo a scratch build with prohibited code/items.
And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those?
If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.
-J
So for something that is, say CC-BY-NonCommercial, it would be okay to ship in the SRPM but not in the RPM?
Neither, actually. See Bad Licences.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
-J
-- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwerner@gmail.com
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:21:52PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Mattia Verga mattia.verga@tiscali.it wrote:
And what about for pre-built binary files contained in source that are not installed in the final rpm (ex. deleted in the %setup stage)? Should the source be purged from those?
If the licensing is such that they can't be redistributed, yes.
And just to be clear for people who search the mailing list archives later:
* If the licensing is okay, the source tarball doesn't need to be repacked with those files excluded. * The binaries (for a definition of binaries that includes code/executable content but not necessarily data) do need to be removed from the build environment in the %prep stage of the rpm build.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-buil...
-Toshio