Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 191998
| Summary: | Review Request: scrip -- spherical coordinate interpolation and remapping package | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ed Hill <ed> | ||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Patrice Dumas <pertusus> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | rawhide | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2006-05-17 19:42:30 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Bug Depends On: | |||||||
| Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Ed Hill
2006-05-16 18:49:16 UTC
With the patch, the rpm flags are not acknowledged and the include and libdir are hardcoded, so I propose the attaced patch instead. Created attachment 129318 [details]
use variables on make command line to change compilation defaults
Hi Patrice, that certainly is an improvement -- thank you! And here are the updated files: http://mitgcm.org/eh3/fedora_misc/scrip-1.4-4.src.rpm http://mitgcm.org/eh3/fedora_misc/scrip.spec * rpmlint is silent * naming is good * follow packaging guidelines * licence acceptable and included * spec legible * source match upstream * everything else is fine * builds in mock APPROVED comments: * the timestamp of the sources is wrong, I find it better to have the right timestamp. In general I use spectool to achive that (or maybe wget -N). * the executables in grids/ may be compiled and distributed maybe with scrip_ prefixed, and in that case the README file may also be added, renamed for example README.utils. * the bugs file could be in %docs Did anyone notice that the license is not BSD as indicated in the spec? I believe it is free according to the Open Source Definition, but the text certainly does not resemble the BSD license text and the derivative works clause: If SOFTWARE is modified to produce derivative works, such modified SOFTWARE should be clearly marked, so as not to confuse it with the version available from Los Alamos National Laboratory. is not present in the BSD license. Hi Jason, you're right that its not exactly BSD. It does appear to be sufficiently "open" in that it allows modification, redistribution, sale, etc. So I think the licesnse terms are perfectly acceptable for inclusion in FE. The only question that remains is "what should we call the license?" I'll be happy to change the license name in the spec before it gets built and pushed (it was just imported). What would you folks like to call it? Woiuld the "SCRIP License" be OK? I don't think it corresponds to any existing license, but I agree that it's certainly free enough. (Item 4 of the Open Source Definition allows requiring the marking or renaming of derivative works.) Are there other packages which use the same license? If not, "SCRIP License" is probably fine but you'll have to endure the rpmlint warning. Hi Patrice and Jason, thank you for the patch and speedy reviews! I've incorporated almost all of your changes and will, as soon as I get some more free time, add the SCRIP/grids and namelist files. The package built successfully on devel and FC-4/5 branches have been requested. Thanks again! |