media-libs/jasper: Readd jasper library (4.0.0)

[jubalh]

Bugs: https://bugs.gentoo.org/734284

[gentoo-bot]

Pull Request assignment

Submitter: @jubalh
Areas affected: ebuilds
Packages affected: media-libs/jasper

media-libs/jasper: @gentoo/proxy-maint (new package)

Linked bugs

No bugs to link found. If your pull request references any of the Gentoo bug reports, please add appropriate GLEP 66 tags to the commit message and request reassignment.

New packages

This Pull Request appears to be introducing new packages only. Due to limited manpower, adding new packages is considered low priority. This does not mean that your Pull Request will not receive any attention, however, it might take quite some time for it to be reviewed. In the meantime, your new ebuild might find a home in the GURU project repository: the ebuild repository maintained collaboratively by Gentoo users. GURU offers your ebuild a place to be reviewed and improved by other Gentoo users, while making it easy for Gentoo users to install it and enjoy the software it adds.

---

In order to force reassignment and/or bug reference scan, please append [please reassign] to the pull request title.

Docs: Code of Conduct ● Copyright policy (expl.) ● Devmanual ● GitHub PRs ● Proxy-maint guide

[jubalh]

Currently I get - media-libs/jasper-4.0.0::gentoo (masked by: invalid: DEPEND: Invalid atom (>=media-libs/freeglut), token 12, invalid: RDEPEND: Invalid atom (>=media-libs/freeglut), token 12) but dont know why :/

[jubalh]

Thanks for the help @SoapGentoo !
And who should I set as maintainer? Earlier there was sci@gentoo.org as well.

[jubalh]

I'm not sure what I should do about the 'invalid license'. That's just the license that JasPer uses. Does it have to be whitelisted/defined somewhere?

[thesamesam]

https://devmanual.gentoo.org/general-concepts/licenses/index.html#adding-new-licenses

It's invalid because we have no item/entry for what that licence means; lookups for licenses are done in licenses/ in the root of the repo (and its masters, but ::gentoo has none)

[thesamesam]

... see also https://bugs.gentoo.org/865455, oops (just saying so not confused by PORTDIR ref, just bad timing with you just pushing - not related)

[jubalh]

Thanks @thesamesam !

The devmanual mentions If your package's license is not already in the tree, you must add the license before committing the package. I was not sure whether that means I need to create another PR first or whether it's enough to place the commit that adds the license in this PR (as the first commit). I chose the latter. Hope that's alright.

[thesamesam]

Thanks @thesamesam !

yw :)

The devmanual mentions If your package's license is not already in the tree, you must add the license before committing the package. I was not sure whether that means I need to create another PR first or whether it's enough to place the commit that adds the license in this PR (as the first commit). I chose the latter. Hope that's alright.

As long as there's a commit preceding it in general, I think it's OK. For the purposes of a PR, the commits as a whole should be seen atomically, so that's fine (it wouldn't make sense to just take the licence PR on its own and within this PR, the licence commit goes first).

What I wouldn't do (you didn't do it, I'm just mentioning it) is putting it in the same commit as adding the new package. This is always kind of a mixed bag. For profile changes like adding a new entry in package.use.mask, I often combine it with adding the new ebuild version or whatever, but for a licence, it feels more likely someone will want to look at the change in isolation so calling it out as a licence change by having a separate commit is useful.

(So yes, all fine)

[gentoo-repo-qa-bot]

Pull request CI report

Report generated at: 2023-04-12 07:13 UTC
Newest commit scanned: cf92d31
Status: ✅ good

There are existing issues already. Please look into the report to make sure none of them affect the packages in question:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/4e8086cb43/output.html