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=467324

Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |berrange@redhat.com Depends on| |454410 Alias| |mingw32-portablexdr

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=467324

Bug 467324 depends on bug 454410, which changed state.

Bug 454410 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-gcc - MinGW Windows cross-compiler (GCC) for C and C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454410

What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |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=467324

Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |pbrobinson@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pbrobinson@gmail.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=467324

--- Comment #2 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com 2008-12-18 09:22:46 EDT --- Mostly good. Just need a clarification of the license.

+ rpmlint output

rpmlint -i mingw32-portablexdr-4.0.11-1.fc10.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora ? license matches the actual package license The website specified in the spec file mentions the original code is BSD derived - %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm a6805f06bbb200d32197845ba723521b portablexdr-4.0.11.tar.gz + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tested using koji scratch build + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun+ does not use Prefix: /usr n/a package owns all directories it creates n/a no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a devel must require the fully versioned base n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

+ if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock/koji n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures n/a review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin

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=467324

--- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com 2009-01-03 05:48:50 EDT --- Held up as per this post https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-December/msg00023.htm...

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=467324

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com

--- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-01-12 15:21:23 EDT --- As an aside, Sun is (slowly) working through resolving this issue. Hopefully, they'll have this fixed across the board by the time Fedora 11 rolls around.

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=467324

Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|182235(FE-Legal) |

--- Comment #8 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-03-06 04:47:39 EDT --- Yes, it should be.

However this package still needs upstream work, and is the major blocking point on the F11 / Windows cross-compiler feature.

Next week ...

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=467324

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |182235(FE-Legal)

--- Comment #10 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-03-06 08:09:07 EDT --- No... because we have to get explicit permission from Sun to do it. Contrary to what you might think would be the logical approach, Sun is only changing the license for code that has cleared their legal dept.

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=467324

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c | |om) |

--- Comment #12 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-03-06 08:56:38 EDT --- We have to get permission for every single project that copied code.

Yes, this is stupid. I sent Simon another email this morning to try to speed things along, but this is Sun's legal machine grinding slowly, not Simon.

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=467324

--- Comment #14 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-03-06 09:11:46 EDT --- Simon swears up and down that we'll get the all-clear soon, but he can't tell me when "soon" is going to be. We're talking daily at this point.

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=467324

--- Comment #16 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com 2009-05-21 13:05:22 EDT --- Is this covered under the Sun re-licensing that also affected other RPC implementations in Fedora?

http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-May/msg01673.html

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=467324

--- Comment #18 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-05-22 08:12:10 EDT --- Sun replied this morning with permission for us to relicense the Sun RPC bits in this code to BSD. I've sent Richard the new license text, so once he updates a package with the new license, I'll lift FE-Legal.

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=467324

--- Comment #20 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2009-11-30 17:31:44 EDT --- Any update here? Sun gave us permission to relicense these bits back in May. :)

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=467324

Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(rjones@redhat.com | |)

--- Comment #22 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com 2010-03-07 08:08:41 EST --- Richard. Is this going to be dropped? Is the review still relevant?

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=467324

--- Comment #24 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2010-06-03 10:11:03 EDT --- Hello? This bug has outlived SUN. Please do something 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=467324

--- Comment #26 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2010-06-03 10:45:04 EDT --- Well, I would like to get this off the FE-Legal blocker ticket. Can you at least post a SRPM with the relicensing changes applied.

Change any references to the SUN RPC license to this:

/* * Copyright (c) 2009, Sun Microsystems, Inc. * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * - Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, * this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * - Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, * this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation * and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * - Neither the name of Sun Microsystems, Inc. nor the names of its * contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" * AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE * LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR * CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF * SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS * INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN * CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE * POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. */

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=467324

Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|tcallawa@redhat.com |

--- Comment #28 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2010-06-03 12:36:30 EDT --- That works for me.

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=467324

--- Comment #30 from Ryan O'Hara rohara@redhat.com 2010-07-13 10:58:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #29)

Hey Richard, so does that mean I need to start the review again, is there an updated rpm/spec?

I'm planning to revise the spec file to use portablexdr 4.9.1, since the most recent spec file I can find it 4.0.11.

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=467324

--- Comment #32 from Ryan O'Hara rohara@redhat.com 2010-07-13 17:04:37 EDT --- SPEC URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rohara/mingw32/portablexdr/mingw32-portablexdr.spe...

SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/~rohara/mingw32/portablexdr/mingw32-portablexdr-4.9...

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=467324

Adam Stokes astokes@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |astokes@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #34 from Adam Stokes astokes@redhat.com 2010-09-02 10:24:38 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-portablexdr Short Description: MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC library. Owners: astokes rohara aphilipoff Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC: rohara astokes aphilipoff pmyers

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=467324

Adam Stokes astokes@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2010-09-03 11:30:06