| Summary: | simh, SIMH historical computers emulator | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Mageia | Reporter: | Pierre Gnaedig <pierre.gnaedig> |
| Component: | New RPM package request | Assignee: | All Packagers <pkg-bugs> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | enhancement | ||
| Priority: | Normal | CC: | marja11, zen25000 |
| Version: | Cauldron | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| URL: | https://github.com/simh/simh | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Source RPM: | simh | CVE: | |
| Status comment: | |||
| Attachments: | Proposed SPEC file for the requested package. | ||
|
Description
Pierre Gnaedig
2016-03-29 22:59:13 CEST
Created attachment 7610 [details]
Proposed SPEC file for the requested package.
This is a proposal for the SPEC file to the requested package.
It compiles on my machine (AMD FX 64-bits), maybe not on the build system.
Pierre Gnaedig
2016-03-29 23:07:11 CEST
URL:
(none) =>
http://http://simh.trailing-edge.com/
Pierre Gnaedig
2016-03-29 23:07:28 CEST
URL:
http://http://simh.trailing-edge.com/ =>
http://simh.trailing-edge.com/ Hi Pierre, Thank-you for your request. Which distribution did the spec come from? The license looks dubious, the actual license(s) would need to be verified. The correct BuildRequire is pcap-devel simh is now hosted in github and 3.9.0 does build. Where are the the other two sources from, that are used in the sub-package? Maybe they should be packaged separately if suitable? (although a pre-built disk image would probably not be allowed unless it is built within the package and all sources are available with a suitable license). Regards, Barry CC:
(none) =>
zen25000 Hi Barry, > Which distribution did the spec come from? IIRC, The distribution was Fedora 20. > The license looks dubious, the actual license(s) would need to be verified. Hmm, I left the license field untouched since I got the package. I'll check it and adjust if necessary. > simh is now hosted in github and 3.9.0 does build. Okay, i didn't see it moved on GitHub. But the link on trailing-edge.com still works, and I'm not confident in making links for downloading specific branches of software on GitHub. For the build, did you run into problems by building the SRPM? > Where are the other two sources from, that are used in the sub-package? I don't really know... The other two sources were incorporated in the SRPM that I downloaded, back in the days. > Maybe they should be packaged separately if suitable? Do you mean in two distinct SRPMs? Best, Pierre. (In reply to Pierre Gnaedig from comment #3) > > > Maybe they should be packaged separately if suitable? > > Do you mean in two distinct SRPMs? > If the licences are very different, that might be the only way. The German and English Wikipedia don't agree on which license is used for SIMH itself, the English one says "MIT (modified)", the German one says "modified X11 license" I don't see the license on github, but guess I'm just looking over it. URL:
http://simh.trailing-edge.com/ =>
https://github.com/simh/simh (In reply to Pierre Gnaedig from comment #3) > Hi Barry, > > > Which distribution did the spec come from? > > IIRC, The distribution was Fedora 20. > OK thanks - I imported the Fedora 24 package as a start point. > > The license looks dubious, the actual license(s) would need to be verified. > > Hmm, I left the license field untouched since I got the package. I'll check > it and adjust if necessary. > The Fedora license looks OK to me so I have kept it. > > simh is now hosted in github and 3.9.0 does build. > > Okay, i didn't see it moved on GitHub. But the link on trailing-edge.com > still works, and I'm not confident in making links for downloading specific > branches of software on GitHub. > For the build, did you run into problems by building the SRPM? > I originally re-worked the spec you supplied, then added a few tweaks to it from Fedora. I moved all of the dos2unix and into a much modified simh-create-tarball.sh which cleans up the spec considerably. > > Where are the other two sources from, that are used in the sub-package? > > I don't really know... The other two sources were incorporated in the SRPM > that I downloaded, back in the days. > > > Maybe they should be packaged separately if suitable? > > Do you mean in two distinct SRPMs? > I ignored those extra tarballs as I don't have them anyway. > Best, > Pierre. There is now a package in Cauldron that you may wish to test. If you find anything wrong with please comment here. Barry @marja - thanks for looking - some of the sources have license text but they are not titled so I have taken Fedora as a guide on this. All the code is compiled from source so no original proprietary binaries are included. There were some ROM images in the upstream tarball but these are stripped out by the script used to create the tarball for the package. Closing as fixed Status:
NEW =>
RESOLVED Ok for me. |