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 904911 - Review Request: mup - a music notation and printing program
Summary: Review Request: mup - a music notation and printing program
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 906411
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-Legal
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-01-28 06:50 UTC by Brendan Jones
Modified: 2013-01-31 17:08 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
: 906411 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-01-31 17:08:57 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Brendan Jones 2013-01-28 06:50:25 UTC 
mup is a music notation and printing program with both GUI and CLI interfaces for authoring and printing music notation.

rpmlint /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/mup-6.1-1.x86_64.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/mup-6.1-1.src.rpm
mup.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

SRPM: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mup-6.1-1.src.rpm
SPEC: http://bsjones.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mup.spec
Comment 1 Greg Bailey 2013-01-28 20:58:21 UTC 
I've made a few changes to the .spec file to move things into proper directories for FHS compliance, and created a .desktop file so that mupmate shows up in the desktop menus.

rpmlint SPECS/mup.spec RPMS/x86_64/mup* SRPMS/mup-6.1-2.fc18.src.rpm 
mup.x86_64: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License
mup-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License
mup.src: W: invalid-license Arkkra Mup License
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

I put "Arkkra Mup License" because the license, while very similar to one of the BSD variants, doesn't match exactly.

SRPM: http://lxpro.com/mup/mup-6.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
SPEC: http://lxpro.com/mup/mup.spec
Comment 2 Greg Bailey 2013-01-28 23:38:39 UTC 
According to:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers

I get bonus points :-) for posting a link to a successful koji build, so here goes:

f19:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4909766

epel6:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4909777
Comment 3 Susi Lehtola 2013-01-31 14:04:16 UTC 
The license http://www.arkkra.com/doc/license.html looks like 2 clause BSD but with the addition

 3. Any additions, deletions, or changes to the original files
 must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation.
 including the reasons for the changes,
 and the names of those who made the modifications

Blocked FE-LEGAL.

**

Greg: please don't hijack other people's review requests. Comments #2 and #3 might lead one to believe you are the submitter.
Comment 4 Brendan Jones 2013-01-31 14:18:41 UTC 
Susi, I have spoken to Greg, he is going to make an new bug submission. He is upstream.

All the headers seem to be BSD, there license file seems to be derivative of BSD. Can you guys check to make sure?
Comment 5 Susi Lehtola 2013-01-31 14:23:13 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> All the headers seem to be BSD, there license file seems to be derivative of
> BSD. Can you guys check to make sure?

Let's wait for spot. This should be a no-brainer.
Comment 6 Brendan Jones 2013-01-31 14:27:34 UTC 
Ok cool.

Another comment, their license looks FOSS to me, so I am unsure of the FE-LEGAL block. Maybe it could be considered under "Good licenses"
Comment 7 Greg Bailey 2013-01-31 15:45:03 UTC 
(In reply to comment #3)
> 
> Greg: please don't hijack other people's review requests. Comments #2 and #3
> might lead one to believe you are the submitter.

Apologies for any perceived hijacking; I was attempting to work with Brendan and he volunteered to pass this off.  I was unaware that I was required to make my own review request until he stated so...
Comment 8 Greg Bailey 2013-01-31 15:46:42 UTC 
(In reply to comment #4)
> Susi, I have spoken to Greg, he is going to make an new bug submission. He
> is upstream.
> 

I've submitted BZ #906411.

FYI, Brendan, I'm not upstream, just a long-time user of Mup.
Comment 9 Tom "spot" Callaway 2013-01-31 16:13:25 UTC 
Can someone please explain to me why there now are two active Review Requests for this package? Is it possible to only have one? :)
Comment 10 Brendan Jones 2013-01-31 17:08:57 UTC 
Closing - see bug 906411

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 906411 ***
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.