Filled in empty HOMEPAGE var in both ebuilds. Reproducible: Always
Created attachment 156347 [details, diff] ebuild with added homepage
Created attachment 156349 [details, diff] ebuild with added homepage
Created attachment 156351 [details, diff] ebuild with added homepage
I'm not convinced that is the right homepage. The latest version on that site is 1.7.8. Where is 2.2?
I find it rather suspect as well. We would need to see a written statement that the copyrights have been passed to this new project, I think.
All the more suspect because HOMEPAGE changes but SRC_URI doesn't.
(In reply to comment #4) > I'm not convinced that is the right homepage. > > The latest version on that site is 1.7.8. Where is 2.2? > I'm afraid you are right. In my enthusiasm I did not bother to check version numbers. However I'm willing to put some effort into it. When I started to search a bit deeper I found that also Fedora (among others) is distributing unix2dos-2.2: http://linux.maruhn.com/sec/unix2dos.html They also do not mention a homepage in their RPM headers: http://www.filewatcher.com/p/unix2dos-2.2-24.i386.rpm.11668/HEADER.html Ok, but what if the package has no active maintainer. Could it be that Tofrodos has taken over as maintainer, having packaged the tool in another way? If this is the case, should they be listed as the maintainer in HOMEPAGE? Or, if they made enhancements to the unix2dos code, should unix2dos and dos2unix be replaced by a new tofrodos-package? (In reply to comment #5) > We would need to see a written statement that the copyrights have been passed > to this new project, I think. > You know what the old copyrights were? Is the "Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2" on top of the ebuild for the program or for the ebuild itself?
Created attachment 156759 [details] tofrodos-1.7.8.ebuild (In reply to comment #7) > Ok, but what if the package has no active maintainer. Could it be that Tofrodos > has taken over as maintainer, having packaged the tool in another way? > If this is the case, should they be listed as the maintainer in HOMEPAGE? Or, > if they made enhancements to the unix2dos code, should unix2dos and dos2unix be > replaced by a new tofrodos-package? Yes, one possibility is to simply provide a new cat/pkg, if someone is willing to maintain the ebuilds. Enhancements on top of the existing codebase (in say, a new version release) > > > (In reply to comment #5) > > We would need to see a written statement that the copyrights have been passed > to this new project, I think. > > > > You know what the old copyrights were? Is the "Distributed under the terms of > the GNU General Public License v2" on top of the ebuild for the program or for > the ebuild itself? No, that's a copyright license. I am talking about the copyright to the original work. If we were to conclude that tofrodos is not the same as dos2unix/unix2dos, then we should perhaps turn this bug into a maintainer-wanted bug and provide an ebuild (a very simple one will do - the attached ebuild could use some toolchain-funcs improvements and doesn't honour CFLAGS and alike).
Comment on attachment 156759 [details] tofrodos-1.7.8.ebuild Needs more work.
Created attachment 183212 [details] ebuid for tofrodos 1.7.8 I have tested this ebuild in ~x86 and ~amd64, the src_compiled is enhaced to avoid "QA Notice: Pre-stripped files found". Also this package is included in other distros as a replacement to dos2unix and unix2dos because tofrodos is updated and the original development for dos2unix is dead.
+*tofrodos-1.7.8 (07 Mar 2009) + + 07 Mar 2009; Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> +metadata.xml, + +tofrodos-1.7.8.ebuild: + Initial commit. Fixes #225903. Ebuild by Victor Ostorga.
