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=468003 --- Comment #2 from Stefan Seefeld <seefeld(a)sympatico.ca&gt; 2008-10-22 09:58:14 EDT --- Hmm, something went wrong in my attempt to attach it. Here are external links: http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/srpm/qmtest-2.4-1.fc9.src.rpm http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/srpms/qmtest.spec Thanks, Stefan -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #4 from Stefan Seefeld <seefeld(a)sympatico.ca&gt; 2008-10-22 13:51:57 EDT --- Thanks for the quick feedback, and thanks for pointing out the license issue. As you may have noticed, QMTest contains some Zope modules. While I did upgrade some of them a little while ago, I left out a few. It seems I should upgrade all of them, thus getting them all to be licensed under ZPL 2.1, which is GPL compatible. The links to the Software Carpentry are broken because that site isn't alive any more. I will ask the relevant people to see what to do. We will probably pull out those now defunct URLs of those texts. Thanks, Stefan -- 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.

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=468003 Stefan Seefeld <seefeld(a)sympatico.ca&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(seefeld@sympatico | |.ca) | --- Comment #6 from Stefan Seefeld <seefeld(a)sympatico.ca&gt; 2008-11-16 22:21:39 EDT --- I have fixed the two issues you made me aware of, i.e. I have upgraded the ZOPE license to 2.1, and I have replaced the now obsolete URL to www.software-carpentry.com. I have uploaded a new source rpm and a new spec file: http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/srpm/qmtest-2.4-2.fc9.src.rpm http://synopsis.fresco.org/download/srpm/qmtest.spec If you confirm that this passes the Fedora acceptance test I'll spin a new minor QMTest release (2.4.1) and then submit qmtest-2.4.1-1 for inclusion into Fedora. Thanks, Stefan -- 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.

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=468003 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: QMTest - an |Review Request: qmtest - an |automated software test |automated software test |execution tool. |execution tool. --- Comment #8 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-11-19 01:31:21 EDT --- For 2.4-2 * License ** There seems no files to specify GPL version ** Some codes/documents are under Open Publican - So the license tag should be "GPL+ and Open Publican" - Also some file contains the contents "(see the file LICENSE.OPL)", however I can find "LICENSE.OPL" file nowhere. Please add this. * ldconfig - Calling ldconfig on scriptlets is not needed for this package. * python module dependency - Please check if all python module dependency related rpms are correctly added to "Requires" * Documents - Please also install "ChangeLog" "NEWS" as documents -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-11-19 03:10:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9) Well, would you tell me from what file you judged that this package is GPL version 2 specific, not GPL at any version (i.e. not GPL+ but GPLv2)? -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-12-07 11:05:11 EDT --- ping again? -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #14 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-12-11 11:17:12 EDT --- Well, again would you tell me where it is indicated that this package is licensed under GPLv2+, not GPL+ (GPL at any version)? Note that just putting GPLv2 license text in the tarball does not mean that the software is licensed under GPLv2 (because of section 9 of GPLv2 license text). If there is GPLv2 license text, but no other files specifies the version of GPL, then it is regarded that it is licensed under GPL+. -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #16 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-12-11 12:15:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15) So actually no. See this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ Putting GPLv2 text only does not mean that the software is licensed under GPLv2. -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #18 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-12-11 13:13:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) In this case we don't do any _guess_ (if possible) but check the license in the technical point of view. I no longer trust website license information because I have seen many cases in which the website license information is wrong due to various reasons. By the way, if you are upstream all I want is that you put the explicit declaration in the COPYING or README that this software is licensed under GPL version 2. -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; 2008-12-11 15:15:22 EDT --- Stefan, would you mind reading the rest of the COPYING file? Down where in term 9 it says: If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. This is where the whole issue comes from. You cannot just say "Look at the COPYING file". Well, you can, but that file is rather explicit in saying that then someone who wishes to distribute the software can choose GPLv1 if they want. The FSF is really clear that every source file needs to contain a specific block of text indicating, among other things, the license version in use. Now, there's a whole procedure to go through in determining the intent of the author if they have chosen for some reason to leave off those blocks of text. Upstream web sites can be used assuming that we can establish that they are authoried by the same entity which authored the software. But that's really a case-by-case thing that the legal folks need to look at. Isn't it just simpler to include an actual statement of the license version? -- 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.

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=468003 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-12-12 08:16:34 EDT --- Okay, please fix %changelog entry and upload 2.4.1 tarball when ready. ---------------------------------------------------- This package (qmtest) is APPROVED by mtasaka ---------------------------------------------------- Please follow the procedure written on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join from "Get a Fedora Account". After you request for sponsorship a mail will be sent to sponsor members automatically (which is invisible for you) which notifies that you need a sponsor. After that, please also write on this bug for confirmation that you requested for sponsorship and your FAS (Fedora Account System) name. Then I will sponsor you. If you want to import this package into Fedora 9/10, you also have to look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UpdatesSystem/Bodhi-info-DRAFT (after once you rebuilt this package on koji Fedora rebuilding system). If you have questions, please ask me. -- 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.

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=468003 Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 | --- Comment #24 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-12-17 12:13:53 EDT --- $ LANG=C rpmbuild -ts qmtest-2.4.1.tar.gz error: Failed to read spec file from qmtest-2.4.1.tar.gz ?? (anyway would you provide your srpm? It is much helpful) By the way I am sponsoring you now. -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #26 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-12-18 13:58:39 EDT --- Well, - I just noticed that many HTML files have "Generated by Epydoc 3.0.1" comments. Does this mean that document HTML files in qmtest can be regenerated by using epydoc (this is available in Fedora)? - By the way would you preserve the old %changelog entry? ("initial package" for 2.4.1 don't seem proper) (In reply to comment #25) - Because rpmbuild -bs just expands %{?dist} value. - In short, you need not take care of this. If your srpm is rebuild on a platform where dist is defined as ".fc11", the rebuilt binary rpms will have ".fc11" in their names. i.e. %{?dist} value is re-valuated when rebuilding binary rpms and the binary rpms are "renamed" properly. Also Fedora CVS system can treat this correctly. -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #28 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-12-19 12:07:46 EDT --- Okay, then this package can be approved. Now please follow "Join" wiki: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join (By the way would you also update Synopsis?) -- 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.

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=468003 Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #30 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com&gt; 2008-12-22 21:44:24 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #32 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp&gt; 2008-12-31 12:26:35 EDT --- For F-10/9: - Please visit bodhi web interface: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ and submit requests to push the rebuilt packages to repositories. For 11: - The rebuilt packages will be (or maybe already have been) pushed into repository. -- 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.

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=468003 --- Comment #34 from Stefan Seefeld <seefeld(a)sympatico.ca&gt; 2008-12-31 15:25:21 EDT --- OK, I requested updates for QMTest and Synopsis for both F9 and F10. I guess this issue (as well as #438543) can now be closed. Thanks for all your help ! And a Happy New Year to you, too ! :-) -- 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.