Overview
Loading...
Request History
ppisa created request
I want to submit qtmips to Factory. It is MIPS emulator created to visualize cache and pipeline in computer architecture course. I am not sure if Education or Emulators is right category for the project.
lrupp accepted request
I think most issues are now clarified (thanks!), so waiting any longer does not help.
I added you as maintainer of the package in the Education repository, so you can check/change things there as needed (while a branch/submit request is always more welcome). I sill recommend to consider to move the package to the emulators project, as it belongs more into this area, IMHO.
Copyright and legal information in the spec file are fine, btw.
I would recommend to use the Emulators devel project for this package. This way we could have all emulators in one main project.
Linking it into Education (if needed/requested) should not be a problem.
Thanks for reply, package sent to Emulators.
By the way, I have prepared Emscripten build of the emulator to test it online http://cmp.felk.cvut.cz/~pisa/apo/qtmips/qtmips_gui.html . The new version includes very minimalistic integrated assembler to allows its use even without MIPS toolchain. But use with mips-elf-gcc is preferred.
Note to this request contents:
Use: BuildRequires: hicolor-icon-theme instead.
I think that it should cover all these directories.
Thanks for comments.
I have changed icons install. As for the spec preamble, is GPL acceptable or exact wording from https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Specfile_guidelines is required?
Exact license identifiers are required for spec preamble in Factory. https://spdx.org/licenses/
Each new license needs legal review and approval.
I think that license included in spec is exactly according referenced SPDX
License: GPL-2.0-or-later
License in source files is // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ and the full header
As I understand previous request, comment is regarding exact spec file header. I have looked at other Factory projects and they do not start with totally uniform headers. So question is if header must match 1:1 that specified in openSUSE:Specfile_guidelines or can be left GPL. It is no problem to change it if that is requirement. Only that GPL makes sense for me even for spec end unconditional routing of bug to Suse does not look to be right for me.
Is the next spec file header acceptable?
# # spec file for package qtmips # # Copyright (c) 2019 Pavel Pisa pisa@cmp.felk.cvut.cz # # This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or # modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License # as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 # of the License, or (at your option) any later version. # # This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, # but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of # MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the # GNU General Public License for more details. # # Please submit bugfixes or comments regarding this spec # file and possible problems on Suse bases systems via # http://bugs.opensuse.org/ # # Please submit generic bugfixes or comments via # https://github.com/cvut/QtMips/ # issues tracker. #
I think that it is not correct to include unconditional routing of spec file bugs to Suse when the spec file is kept in original project repository too. Is a right solution (in such case) to keep two spec copies, one for OBS one for others?
[resent to attempt correct formatting]
@MargueriteSu, @Thruth, @behrisch, @cjunghans, @computersalat, @dbalentine, @fabio_s, @fschuett, @fsgaston, @gallochri, @glunardi, @grayswandir12, @kkirill, @lrupp, @lumnis, @maw, @mpmiranda, @mseben, @repabuild, @vlj, @worldcitizen: review reminder