Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: tvbrowser - Free EPG for over 500 stations.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472144
Summary: Review Request: tvbrowser - Free EPG for over 500 stations. Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: red@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.1-0.3.fc10.i386.rpm Description: TV-Browser is a free electronic program guide (EPG). It offers more than 500 stations.
This is my first package (with a little starting aid from che on #fedora-de) and I need a mentor.
When I build the rpm, I seem to have some small problems that I've not been able to solve: - find: `debug': No such file or directory - some in-the-jars operation has a problem with a file within a jar that has spaces in its filename: + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-java-repack-jars cp: cannot stat `./bbc/rd/tvanytime/util/Copy': No such file or directory cp: cannot stat `of': No such file or directory cp: cannot stat `DVBLocatorToolbox': No such file or directory - javadoc compilation fails in this version of tvbrowser. I commmented those parts out for now and hope upstream will solve this.
Nevertheless, I can install and run the application just fine.
I was not sure, if it's ok to include out-of-the-box plugins/whatever in the base package or if I need to create additional packages for those.
Comments and mentors welcome ;)
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=472144
Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |thomas.moschny@gmx.de
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de 2008-11-19 02:53:56 EDT --- - You need to provide a src rpm. - Please specify a download url for Source0. - Missing changelog. - Missing %doc files (at least add COPYRIGHT.txt). - Package should be noarch.
rpmlint output: tvbrowser.i386: W: no-documentation tvbrowser.i386: W: summary-ended-with-dot Free EPG for over 500 stations. tvbrowser.i386: E: description-line-too-long TV-Browser is a free electronic program guide (EPG). It offers more than 500 stations. tvbrowser.i386: E: no-changelogname-tag tvbrowser.i386: E: no-binary
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=472144
--- Comment #2 from Thomas Moschny thomas.moschny@gmx.de 2008-11-19 03:22:42 EDT --- Furthermore, you (accidentally) transferred classes from .jar files from the 'source' distribution into the final rpm, which is strictly not allowed.
The reason is, that this command is wrong:
find -name '*.jar' -o -name '*.class' -exec rm -f '{}' ;
It needs to be changed to
find ( -name '*.jar' -o -name '*.class' ) -exec rm -f '{}' ;
in order to work as expected.
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=472144
Sandro Mathys red@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |474983
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=472144
manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |tvbrowser
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=472144
Sandro Mathys red@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |474985
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=472144
Sandro Mathys red@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |474999
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=472144
Sandro Mathys red@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |469471
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=472144
Sandro Mathys red@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |475017
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=472144
Sandro Mathys red@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |475018
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=472144
Sandro Mathys red@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |475019
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=472144
--- Comment #3 from Sandro Mathys red@fedoraproject.org 2008-12-11 20:12:51 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.1-0.4.fc10.src.rpm
Everything mentioned in the comments above fixed. Those precompiled jars from upstream's src distribution are now BuildRequires, and those not already available in Fedora are now ready for review (see the dependency tree of this request).
During javadoc generation there's a NullPointerException for no obvious reason. I was not yet able to track this down and will need some more time for this. But I wouldn't consider the javadoc a show-stopper since this is an application and no library or the like.
rpmlint on spec, srpm and noarch-rpms finishes checking without any warnings or errors.
Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg.
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=472144
Sandro Mathys red@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |177841
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=472144
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on|177841 |
--- Comment #4 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-15 10:08:02 EDT --- (Removing NEEDSPONSOR)
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=472144
Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sm@sandro-mathys.ch
--- Comment #5 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2008-12-15 23:25:01 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.1-1.fc10.src.rpm
New version including much of the experience I got when my jcalendar pkg was reviewed.
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=472144
Bug 472144 depends on bug 469471, which changed state.
Bug 469471 Summary: Review Request: skinlf - Java look and feel for swing https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=469471
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
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=472144
Bug 472144 depends on bug 474999, which changed state.
Bug 474999 Summary: Review Request: gdata-java - Client libraries to write Google Data API client applications in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474999
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=472144
--- Comment #6 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-01-10 13:31:01 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.2-1.fc11.src.rpm
New version: 2.7.2
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=472144
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235
--- Comment #7 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-16 13:45:02 EDT --- Well, currenly I make this package blocked by FE-Legal
This package itself is under GPLv2+, however - This package also depends (BRs) on skinlf and l2fprod-common
- skinlf (bug 469471, already imported into Fedora) is under "ASL 2.0 and zlib and ASL 1.1" - I checked l2fprod-common (bug 475017) and actually this is under "ASL 2.0 and ASL 1.1" - And ASL 1.1 is not compatible with GPLv2+: see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing
So: - Would you ask l2fprod-common upstream to relicense all files under ASL 1.1 to ASL 2.0? - And also would you ask skinlf upstream to do so?
By the way ASL 1.1 is this: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1
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=472144
Bug 472144 depends on bug 474983, which changed state.
Bug 474983 Summary: Review Request: TVAnytimeAPI - A java API for parsing, manipulating and creating TV-Anytime metadata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474983
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=472144
Bug 472144 depends on bug 475018, which changed state.
Bug 475018 Summary: Review Request: xtvd - A client java library for easy access to the tv data from schedulesdirect.org https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475018
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=472144
--- Comment #8 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-01-26 12:29:11 EDT --- I dropped both projects a quick line outlining the issue and what we'd like from them. Both have the same head developer which makes it a bit easier. Unfortunately, both projects haven't seen a commit or release in many months or even some years...not sure if I'll get any answer at all and how much they're interested in changing licenses after such a long time.
While all websites of those projects and the head developer's website on all his projects are pretty much outdated, his blog is still current...so we know at least the head developer is still alive.
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=472144
--- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-26 12:59:12 EDT --- Okay, thank you for update.
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=472144
--- Comment #10 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-01-26 16:13:55 EDT --- Surprise, surprise! I got an answer in short time and the head developer (Fred) replied that he was under the impression that everything is already licensed under ASL 2.0 (for both packages). He said, that if I provide him a list with the files with a different license he'll happily change those to ASL 2.0.
So, the question now is: what's the easiest way to create a list of all files showing each file's license? Or can this only be done manually?
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=472144
--- Comment #11 from manuel wolfshant wolfy@nobugconsulting.ro 2009-01-26 16:20:22 EDT --- licensecheck.pl does a pretty good job as a first iteration
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=472144
--- Comment #12 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-01-26 18:46:49 EDT --- licensecheck.pl only recognizes four different types of 'licenses' in l2fprod-common and l2fprod-skinlf: - Apache (v2.0) - UNKNOWN - GENERATED FILE - *No copyright* GENERATED FILE
Is it safe to say anything not ASL 2.0 is ASL 1.1? Some should be zlib according to Mamoru, though.
I'm _really_ bad with licenses and need some help here.
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=472144
--- Comment #13 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-26 21:59:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
Surprise, surprise! I got an answer in short time and the head developer (Fred) replied that he was under the impression that everything is already licensed under ASL 2.0 (for both packages). He said, that if I provide him a list with the files with a different license he'll happily change those to ASL 2.0.
Thanks you for feedback. I will post on this bug the list of the files which needs license change.
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=472144
--- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-27 11:15:53 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=330106) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=330106) License analysis
License analysis for l2fprod-common and skinlf is attached.
Some files in l2fprod-common and almost all files in skinlf are under ASL 1.1 (for skinlf, LICENSE text itself shows ASL 1.1).
For skinlf, src/examples/Clock.java has a quite questionable license clause: ----------------------------------------------------- ii) Licensee does not utilize the software in a manner which is disparaging to Sun. ----------------------------------------------------- I guess this clause is NON-FREE. In Fedora skinlf this file is currently removed.
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=472144
Bug 472144 depends on bug 474985, which changed state.
Bug 474985 Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-compress - API for working with tar, zip and bzip2 files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474985
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Bug 472144 depends on bug 475019, which changed state.
Bug 475019 Summary: Review Request: opencsv - A very simple csv (comma-separated values) parser library for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475019
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
--- Comment #15 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-02-12 04:08:41 EDT --- Fred says he updated the files in their CVS but is having problems getting the maven build to work. He'll maybe drop back to the old ant script. We're currently using ant in the skinlf pkg and neither of both in l2fprod-common anyway.
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=472144
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com
--- Comment #16 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-03-12 11:34:58 EDT --- Any update here?
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=472144
--- Comment #17 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-03-13 03:56:37 EDT --- No, currently not.
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=472144
--- Comment #18 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-03-13 12:02:54 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.3-1.fc10.src.rpm
New version - no other changes were needed to get this working.
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=472144
--- Comment #19 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-04-30 03:44:41 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.3-2.fc11.src.rpm
Changes in the l2fprod-common package made it necessary to adapt the path of one dependency.
---
As an update to the legal blocker: - l2fprod-common now good - skinlf still incompatible ...both have the same upstream and I'm positive that all issues will be fixed (i.e. upstream prefers ASL 2.0 but didn't apply the changes to this new license everywhere yet) - but upstream isn't very responsive and seems not to have enough time to quickly fix this.
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=472144
Bug 472144 depends on bug 475017, which changed state.
Bug 475017 Summary: Review Request: l2fprod-common - In JavaSE missing Swing components, inspired from modern user interfaces https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475017
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=472144
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |NotReady
--- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-07-10 18:05:26 EDT --- Please clear the whiteboard if this becomes ready for review in the future.
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=472144
--- Comment #21 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-08-27 03:07:16 EDT --- Would you update the status of this bug?
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=472144
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(red@fedoraproject | |.org)
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=472144
--- Comment #22 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-09-14 03:12:33 EDT --- Unfortunately, there is no update - i.e. upstream stopped to response. Didn't try to get in contact with upstream in quite a while though and will do so a last time right now.
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=472144
Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |524784
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=472144
Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|NotReady | Flag|needinfo?(red@fedoraproject | |.org) |
--- Comment #23 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-10-01 05:51:08 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
New version - no other changes were needed to get this working.
As for the legal blocker: - upstream changed skinlf to be ASL 2.0 _only_ in CVS - mycae updates the skinlf pkg in Fedora to the latest CVS revision - new skinlf pkg in rawhide and updates-testing, not yet in updates - I will wait with pushing tvbrowser to updates until the new skinlf pkg has landed there - I Require the latest skinlf pkg version for tvbrowser
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=472144
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235(FE-Legal) |
--- Comment #24 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-10-01 10:23:46 EDT --- Lifting FE-Legal, as this is resolved in rawhide (at least).
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=472144
--- Comment #25 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-10-01 15:24:45 EDT --- Well I checked the latest rawhide skinlf source and skinlf CVS repository, however the following files are still under ASL 1.1 (total: 10 files)
----------------------------------------------------------------------- src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/SkinLookAndFeel.java src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/Window.java src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/impl/AbstractSkinProgress.java src/main/com/l2fprod/gui/plaf/skin/impl/gtk/parser/*.java -----------------------------------------------------------------------
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=472144
--- Comment #26 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-10-03 05:05:50 EDT --- Thanks for the pointer, Mamoru.
I notified skinlf's upstream and skinlf's pkg maintainer about this issue and will keep in touch with both to resolve this. As soon as everything's ASL 2.0, I'll update the status here.
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=472144
--- Comment #27 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-12-05 09:38:09 EDT --- ASL 2.0 only version of skinlf is about to hit Fedora (see bug 524784). With this step we should be ready to bring tvbrowser into Fedora...and it only took us a little over one year! ;)
Who's up for the formal review? :)
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=472144
--- Comment #28 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-05 10:08:06 EDT --- While I don't know I can review tvbrowser soon (as I have some other review requests assigned to myself), - first of all I want to recheck skinlf src/binary - and would you recheck your tvbrowser srpm and upload the new one if there is something you want to modify?
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=472144
--- Comment #29 from Sandro Mathys sm@sandro-mathys.ch 2009-12-09 10:39:55 EDT --- Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/tvbrowser-2.7.4-2.fc12.src.rpm
Only some little changes have been made to improve the spec. Also a patch was extended because of the change to jakarta-commons-compress 1.0 (the patch went into that direction before with another j-c-c version change).
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=472144
--- Comment #30 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-11 14:34:36 EDT --- Umm....
Again sorry to raise license question, however: This time from mock build (koji scratch build result: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1870124 ) I tried to check the licenses of rpms listed as BuildRequires and its dependencies, then:
----------------------------------------------------------------- bsf-2.4.0-3.fc12 ASL 1.1 jakarta-oro-2.0.8-6.3.fc12 ASL 1.1 xalan-j2-2.7.0-9.5.fc12 ASL 1.1 and ASL 2.0 and W3C xml-commons-resolver-1.1-4.16.fc12 ASL 1.1 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Would you explain how these are used? (Especially bsf, jakarta-oro are listed directly as BuildRequires and lib/*.jar contains jars included in these rpms so I guess these 2 rpms are actually used for tvbrowser)
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=472144
--- Comment #31 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-12-11 14:36:03 EDT --- (I guess this is all we have to check for license issue)
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=472144
Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aquini@linux.com
--- Comment #32 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-07-30 23:18:50 EDT --- PING
It's been almost eight months with no progress; This bug should be closed soon if there is no response, shouldn't it?
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=472144
Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks| |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution| |NOTABUG
--- Comment #33 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-08-07 11:03:10 EDT --- Due to the lack of response this review is now considered as stalled. I'm closing this bug just as described in Fedora's Policy for stalled package reviews
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
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=472144
Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) | Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #34 from Thomas Spura tomspur@fedoraproject.org 2011-12-04 07:19:23 EST ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 754246 ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org