Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247983 ------- Additional Comments From jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de 2007-07-12 14:53 EST ------- Some additional comments: - First in the %install section the buildroot was cleaned, but no in the %clean sectioon. Sorry for my mistake on comment #1 - you don't used the %{?_smp_mflags} makro in the make step. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247983 bert(a)freudenbergs.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |247984 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247983 jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de ------- Additional Comments From jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de 2007-07-15 14:59 EST ------- Good: + Package meets naming guidelines + SPEC filename match with package base name + License is MIT + License tag matches with license included in upstream tar ball. + SPEC file is written in English + Package has correct buildroot + Package has not redundant BuildRequires + File list of package doesn't contains duplicates entries + File list contains no files or directories own by other packages Bad. - Don't use Vendor tag - Source tag contains not a full qualified URI - Unnecessary Provide tag - Condition before deleting of the build root is not require - Missing Version entries in the changelog entries - Inproper use of the rpm macros in the %file section - Package doesn't contains a %defattr statemend - Version 3.9-11 seems not to be an official stable version - Package doesn't contains a %doc section - Package doens't contains verbatim copy of the license text, but you can find the license text in the upstream tar ball - Build doesn't use compiler flags in $RPM_OPT_FLAGS - Unnecessary Prefix tag - If you wnat to include all files and directories belang a specific directory, the entry in the file list must ands with a slash - Your package contains file which should be belongs th the nonexisting %doc section - Rpmlint complaints on source rpm: rpmlint squeak-vm-3.9-11olpc3.src.rpm W: squeak-vm hardcoded-prefix-tag %{prefix} W: squeak-vm unversioned-explicit-provides %{name}-%{version} W: squeak-vm setup-not-quiet W: squeak-vm rpm-buildroot-usage %build make ROOT=%{buildroot} %{?_smp_mflags} W: squeak-vm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 9) - Rpmlint complaints on binary rpm: rpmlint squeak-vm-3.9-11olpc3.x86_64.rpm E: squeak-vm binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib/squeak/3.9-11/squeak ['/usr/lib'] - Mock build failed on Devel (ppc64). Build log will be attached Special question: Do you search a sponsor. If yes, Unfortunately, I can't sponsor you. because I'm not a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247983 bert(a)freudenbergs.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo? | ------- Additional Comments From bert(a)freudenbergs.de 2007-07-15 18:33 EST ------- Thanks Jochen, I'll work on the "bad" list. The build failure is due to a missing libXt-devel BuildRequire. And I've got someone willing to sponsor me but he's on vacation atm. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=247983 ------- Additional Comments From bert(a)freudenbergs.de 2007-08-16 03:10 EST ------- Heh, thanks for the ping. Now *I* am on vacation, should get back to this at the end of August. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247983 johnp(a)redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From johnp(a)redhat.com 2007-10-15 14:00 EST ------- Bert says in an e-mail: This doesn't work because I cannot sign the CLA on behalf of Viewpoints. I'm only a consultant for them, not a legal representative. I have explained the reasoning for the CLA but have also heard whole companies can sign a CLA which may alleviate Bert's burden. Kicking to FE-Legal so that they can explain more and give Bert options. This is also an issue with bug #247984 -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247983 lemenkov(a)gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lemenkov(a)gmail.com ------- Additional Comments From lemenkov(a)gmail.com 2008-01-22 09:02 EST ------- What's the status of this Review Request? Anther one question - why this package mentions OLPC in its name? Looks like this package is a general purpose Smaltalk VM and nor contains special OLPC code neither specially designed for OLPC. -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247983 ------- Additional Comments From matt_domsch(a)dell.com 2008-02-10 23:25 EST ------- please advise as to where the source code for this was originally obtained. ftp.squeak.org does not contain the same source tarball as is bundled in this package. Also note, significant portions of this package appear to be dual licensed under the LGPLv2.1+ and the Squeak license, neither of which are MIT. ./platforms/Cross/plugins/JPEGReadWriter2Plugin/jcomapi.c notes it is licensed and to read a README file, but no such file exists (contrary to the Independent JPEG Group's license). It might be considered free enough, but that's not entirely clear. There's a boatload of MP3 plugin code here. MP3 is patented. ./platforms/Cross/plugins/SoundCodecPrims/ is missing a COPYRIGHT file containing the license for code in that dir too. There's a lot of stuff under a Sun copyright with a permissive license. There's stuff under the Squeak license, not dual-licensed. There's Perl-Compatible-Regular-Expressions which is yet another license... There's GPLv2+ code in ./platforms/unix/plugins/VideoForLinuxPlugin/ccvt_types.h Debian won't carry this even in non-free. This scares me. Thanks to LaserJock for pointing out the legal mess that this code appears to be. Contining to block FE-Legal. -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: squeak-vm - Squeak virtual machine for OLPC https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=247983 ------- Additional Comments From jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de 2008-05-13 09:29 EST ------- In your case I will suggest to open the review on rpmfusion.org because they have no issues with this kind of licensing issue. -- 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, or are watching someone who is.