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 ------- Additional Comments From mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-04 11:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > * 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) > > > This is OK as Public Domain, please see > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-March/msg00142.html Right, I know public domain is acceptable, but is this project really public domain if it has that clause in there? > > * license field matches the actual license. > > X the license field does not mention the Technology License > As noted in the message on the mailing list > > > > * license is open source-compatible. > > - use acronyms for licences where common > > X I don't know if the Technology License is open source-compatible > > > Same as above. > > * 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. > > > No license file as it is Public Domain, and I fixed the link in intro.html > > > * 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 > Fixed. > > > 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 > Fixed. > > Updated spec and srpm at the same location. Thanks > Rest of review since the package now builds: * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here OK, build fine in mock - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) X Do we want to be advertising for that book? * make sure description lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary OK, contains a javadoc subpackage * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps X missing a -p on the first cp in %prep * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs rpm -qp --provides concurrent-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm concurrent-1.3.4.jar.so()(64bit) concurrent = 0:1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7 rpm -qp --requires concurrent-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpm -qp --provides concurrent-javadoc-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm concurrent-javadoc = 0:1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7 rpm -qp --requires concurrent-javadoc-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm X it should not need a requires on these * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs rpmlint concurrent-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: concurrent non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java rpmlint concurrent-javadoc-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: concurrent-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation rpmlint concurrent-debuginfo-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm OK, the group warnings can be ignored SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock OK -- 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