[Bug 491694] Review Request: Anyterm - Web based terminal emulator

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=491694





--- Comment #24 from Alexander Boström <abo at root.snowtree.se>  2009-07-14 04:51:52 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> (In reply to comment #22)

> >  * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
> > the Licensing Guidelines .
> 
> Is this a separate issue or does this relate to the next one? The current spec
> file includes "License: GPLv2+" which should satisfy this requirement.

Yeah, I think that bullet refers to the package as a whole. GPLv2+ is fine,
course! Also, the build reqs. have GPL compatible licenses.

> in there (only in trunk) this is not an issue: 
> 
>   http://svn.anyterm.org/anyterm/tags/releases/1.1/1.1.29/src/

Eh, sorry, rather sloppy of me to not check that. I'm glad it's not really an
issue, though.

> (just out of curiosity if it was an issue, what would I need to do, eg would
> this something we couldn't proceed with until it was resolved upstream?

In the general case I think upstream needs to have its licensing in order for
their code to go into Fedora.

But in this case, looking further at the code, I see that worst case we'd just
need a new tarball with the file removed, because it seems it's actually only
used on Solaris.

> nothing in anyterm explicitly depends on httpd
> and it can be run 100% fine as is without it.

> (what are your thoughts about a seperate anyterm-httpd package?)

Hmm, you're right. A subpackage would be fine. Another option is to just put
anyterm.conf in %doc since it asks to be edited anyway.

> I tried to use all the predefined %{} macros that I could where
> appropriate

There's __make, __rm, __mkdir.

> I'm not sure how to approach doing these translations / which are needed

Me neither, but I just mentioned it for completeness. Not a blocker!

> Which way is standard? Googling for this, I find most specs redirect both
> stdout / stderr
> (or even just stderr)

I'd say only redirect stderr if there's a known, harmless error to hide. If
it's normally silent on stderr then don't redirect it. The same goes for
stdout, only redirect it if there's anything unsightly to hide.

getent might send uninteresting output to stdout but is always silent on stderr
even when the entry is missing. useradd/groupadd is always silent on both
stdout and stderr. So only redirect stdout from getent and don't redirect
anything from useradd/groupadd.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups does it that way.

-- 
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.