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 200249
Summary: | Review Request: cvs2svn | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Konstantin Ryabitsev <icon> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Paul F. Johnson <paul> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | Flags: | petersen:
fedora-cvs+
|
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: | 2006-07-27 01:47:54 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 |
Description
Konstantin Ryabitsev
2006-07-26 14:49:13 UTC
Okay... Should this not be Development/Tools rather than Languages? Could you also clarify if the licence for this software is modified BSD or straight BSD please? Hey, Paul: You're right, I missed the Group bit -- will modify accordingly. I guess I could change the license to "Modified BSD", even though the modification is small: * 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if * any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes * software developed by CollabNet (http://www.Collab.Net/)." * Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if * and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. It's somewhere between the original BSD and current BSD -- the dreaded "advertise clause" is required, but only in documentation, so it's not a big deal. Like I said, the subversion package in core lists the license as "BSD", so I figure it's safe to leave it as just "BSD" for this one as well. Full license text: http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/project_license.html Updated group: http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/cvs2svn.spec http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/cvs2svn-1.4.0-0.2.rc1.src.rpm Added Requires: rcs http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/cvs2svn.spec http://blues.mcgill.ca/~icon/fe/cvs2svn-1.4.0-0.3.rc1.src.rpm Builds without a hitch. rpmlint is happy, mock is happy. The licence does seem correct as BSD. ACCEPTED Wow, this is the fastest package review I've had in my life. :) Thanks, Paul! Please create EPEL branches: Branches: EL-4, EL-5 done |