Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: concurrent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225653 mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-29 15:47 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware X I don't know if we can just distribute this. The project claims to be in the public domain but sections of it are covered by a Technology License from Sun Microsystems Inc. (http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/sun-u.c.license.pdf) * license field matches the actual license. X the license field does not mention the Technology License * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common X I don't know if the Technology License is open source-compatible * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK, md5sum matches * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc X The source does not include a specific license file, but it does mention the terms of the license in the intro.html file included. This file has a broken link to the Sun Technology license which should be patched. * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output rpmlint concurrent-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm W: concurrent non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: concurrent strange-permission concurrent.tar.gz 0660 W: concurrent strange-permission concurrent-1.3.4.build.xml 0660 W: concurrent strange-permission concurrent.spec 0640 X please fix these permission issues * changelog should be in a proper format OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * Distribution tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK, does not use PreReq * specfile is legible OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X package fails in mock. I will continue the review once the package can be built properly and the licensing issues are resolved. Error in mock build: cp: cannot stat `intro.html': No such file or directory -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review