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=769958 --- Comment #2 from John C Peterson <jcp(a)eskimo.com&gt; 2011-12-23 16:34:20 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~jcp/eqp.spec SRPM URL: http://www.eskimo.com/~jcp/eqp-09e-2.fc16.src.rpm Jerry - thanks again for sponsoring me. I think I have fixed all of the minor issues you have raised. As you suggested, I just eliminated the patch to the Makefile and made the corresponding adjustments to the make command in the %build section. The "go" script in the examples sub-directory is rather trivial as you can see by inspection, so it really doesn't warrant an examples sub-package. I elected to just remove the executable permission bits. It could also be entirely eliminated from the package if that is in some way preferable. I eliminated the checks in %install and %clean for RPM_BUILD_ROOT being equal to "/" as you suggested. Just the thought of that happening is enough to make my hair stand on end, so I have included it in all my personal packages for ages now. (I guess I am dating myself by including that :^) Your patch for the printf statements is a much better solution than mine, and as you said, it also works independent of the host architecture. The issues relating to the licensing are a valid concern of course, but could be a show stopper in this case because there is no upstream to contact regarding this issue (or the filing of bug reports). The author, William McCune, passed away rather suddenly back in May 2011. A shocker to the ATP community for sure as he was only 58! http://www.cs.unm.edu/~veroff/ADAM/2011/ I will contact fedora-legal-list(a)redhat.com as you suggested. It's worth a try. I doubt that it would be of any help in making a legal clarification, but Bill was also the author of Prover9/Mace which is already packaged in Fedora as prover9. That package is licensed under GPLv2 and GPLv2+, but the prover9 source distribution includes a file named COPYING that clearly states that, which is not the case for EQP. -- 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.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 --- Comment #4 from John C Peterson <jcp(a)eskimo.com&gt; --- (In reply to comment #3) Hi Mario, Thanks for taking the time to get involved with my package review. The folks on fedora legal were not comfortable with parts of the EQP license. They noted there was no specific mention of the right to distribute modified copies of the software, and wanted clarification of that before they would approve it. Sadly, the EQP author, Bill McCune passed away in May 2011. This certainly makes it more difficult to resolve the copyright issues in question. However, all is not lost. My suspicion is that the legal holder of the copyright is the organization that funded his work. I was initially a bit discourgaed about all this, but it is certainly worth sending out a few emails to the right folks at Argonne National Labs where Bill was working during most of the development of EQP to see if they can help us with these issues. For what it's worth, both EQP and Bill's other famous theorem prover, Otter, are packaged in Debian (which takes copyright issues seriously). John P.S. I will modify the spec file to incorporate your recommended changes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 --- Comment #6 from John C Peterson <jcp(a)eskimo.com&gt; --- Of course, it's not over until 'the fat lady sings", but a bit of encouraging news on the license issue that is currently holding things up with legal. I managed to get in contact with the group at Argonne National Laboratory where the (now deceased) EQP author was employed during most of the time it was being developed. We had a couple e-mail exchanges, and I think I sucessfully communicated to them what the issues were regarding the copyright. I don't know how long it will take to get clarification, but they have graciously agreed to look into it. In the meantime, I removed the defattr tag as requested. Here are the updated SPEC, SRPM files: Spec URL: http://jcp.fedorapeople.org/eqp.spec SRPM URL: http://jcp.fedorapeople.org/eqp-09e-3.fc17.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 Mario Blättermann <mario.blaettermann(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=deFa8lceZi&a=cc_unsubscribe

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa(a)redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com&gt; --- John, if there is anything I can do to help out you or Argonne, just let me know. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mrKLMonYlG&a=cc_unsubscribe

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 John C Peterson <jcp(a)eskimo.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(jcp(a)eskimo.com) | --- Comment #10 from John C Peterson <jcp(a)eskimo.com&gt; --- Hello James, The short answer is no. As I noted in my post dated 2012-11-01, I did get into contact with the organization at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), where the (now deceased) EQP author was employed when the original work was performed. There wasn't any formal procedure at ANL for the licensing or distribution of software when the code was first released. Consequently, the EQP software is not even in their own database of ANL developed software. They pretty much just gave me pointers to the "license" that is shown on the project home page (links below). I can forward those emails from ANL to anyone who is interested. http://www.mcs.anl.gov/research/projects/AR/eqp/ http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/eqp/ If that "license" is not adequate, then the matter should be considered closed. My feeling is that it's highly unlikely ANL will be inclined to provide any further clarification above and beyond that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 --- Comment #12 from Upstream Release Monitoring <upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- jcp's scratch build of eqp-09e-4.fc23.src.rpm for f23 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12194820 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orion(a)cora.nwra.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |orion(a)cora.nwra.com Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #14 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18312354 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - Perhaps an example could be run in %check as a test? ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 48 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/769958-eqp/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 27 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: eqp-09e-4.fc27.x86_64.rpm eqp-09e-4.fc27.src.rpm eqp.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib eqp.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id eqp.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/.build-id eqp.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eqp 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: eqp-debuginfo-09e-4.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- eqp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- eqp: eqp eqp(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/old-ftp/eqp-09e.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ad3cfc1e6538be311173f6600254a548151f7b1e6b526c5151d162cbe21db9b1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ad3cfc1e6538be311173f6600254a548151f7b1e6b526c5151d162cbe21db9b1 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 769958 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 --- Comment #16 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; --- Yes, add the extra info to the LICENSE file and include as %license. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #18 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; --- Looks good. Approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- eqp-09e-5.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-91f9f7704e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- eqp-09e-5.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-293791117e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 --- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- eqp-09e-5.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-91f9f7704e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769958 --- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- eqp-09e-5.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component