<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com" target="_blank">paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">2012/11/11 Ted Ralphs <<a href="mailto:ted@lehigh.edu">ted@lehigh.edu</a>>:<br>
<div class="im">><br>
><br>
> On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade<br>
> <<a href="mailto:paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com">paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi,<br>
>><br>
>> I have a prototype all in one "coin-or" package and prototype split<br>
>> all projects in different packages naming them "coinor-*" at<br>
>> <a href="http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coinor" target="_blank">http://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/coinor</a><br>
>><br>
>> I would like some feedback before making a formal request<br>
>> for inclusion in the fedora distribution.<br>
>><br>
>> Main issues I have are:<br>
>><br>
>> o Sub project tarballs include all of their dependencies. The reason<br>
>> probably is to make it self contained and reduce bug reports<br>
>> due to non matching versions. But I may need to repackage<br>
>> tarballs to have it accepted in Fedora due to data/examples<br>
>> missing license information<br>
><br>
><br>
> A while back, we changed the configure scripts so that you could easily<br>
> check out and build the projects individually for this exact reason. If you<br>
> take just the subfolder Xxx within project Xxx, you can build in that<br>
> subfolder and link the resulting library against other already installed<br>
> projects. The only caveat is that you have to build them in the right order<br>
> (that's what the configure script in the root directory takes care of for<br>
> you). A simple script could essentially do the same job. All the relevant<br>
> license, documentation, examples, etc. for each project are located in the<br>
> subfolder. Would it be sufficient to just take this part of the posted<br>
> tarballs? If not, it should be relatively easy to create tarballs without<br>
<br>
</div> configure and pkgconfig should take care of instructing someone<br>
bootstraping, or building a new component when something is<br>
missing or outdated, so, yes, it would be better to package only<br>
the subfolder.<br><div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br>I'm not so confident that things would fail gracefully. That should be tested.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">
> dependencies and post those also. You are correct for the reasoning for the<br>
> current tarballs including all dependencies.<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> o Data and examples information is very desirable, to know<br>
>> what could be packaged, but I am afraid they do not have<br>
>> a license (e.g. <a href="http://www.coin-or.org/download/source/Data/" target="_blank">http://www.coin-or.org/download/source/Data/</a><br>
>> contents of Data-*.tgz)<br>
><br>
><br>
> Yes, that's always been a problem. We discussed it and made an effort to<br>
> clean this up some time ago, trying to identify the source for each file and<br>
> get the owner to provide a license, but this was a losing game and didn't go<br>
> far. Unfortunately, most of the standard test instances that are out there<br>
> are unlicensed. I will bring this up again with the board and see what we<br>
> can do.<br>
<br>
</div> Actually, I am only asking about that because of the empty README<br>
and LICENSE files, otherwise I most likely would not notice it... And<br>
standard "fedora-review" would not find it either, as it would not match<br>
the default pattern for automated "licensecheck":<br>
<br>
--check, -c Specify a pattern indicating which files should<br>
be checked<br>
(Default:<br>
'\.(c(c|pp|xx)?|h(h|pp|xx)?|f(77|90)?|p(l|m)|xs|sh|php|py(|x)|rb|java|vala|el|sc(i|e)|cs|pas|inc|dtd|xsl|mod|m|tex|mli?)$')<br>
<br>
I have been holding on submitting the packages for review mostly<br>
due to this, that is, if there is dubious content, it should be removed<br>
from the tarball, but repackaging a tarball has its own issues...<br><div class="im"></div></blockquote><div><br>I wouldn't characterize any of the files in Data as "questionable." They were all clearly released by their owners at some point, but the documentation is more difficult. It just depends on how conservative you want to me. We can remove the empty files and make a new release...<br>
<br>Ted<br>-- <br></div></div>Dr. Ted Ralphs<br>Associate Professor, Lehigh University<br>(610) 628-1280<br>ted 'at' lehigh 'dot' edu<br><a href="http://coral.ie.lehigh.edu/~ted" target="_blank">coral.ie.lehigh.edu/~ted</a><br>
<br>