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: tzdata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226509 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-12-21 23:58 EST ------- OK, let's have a look. The tzdata-base-0.tar.bz2 file is indeed a bit weird. I understand what it's used for, and if I'm correct, the maintainer of this packages just repacks it and uploads to the buildsys when a file needs to be changed. That's OK; it just needs to be commented in the spec so that everyone will know where it comes from: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Normally I would suggest that you drop the Conflicts: tag and the versioned BuildRequires: for glibc-common, but given what this packages is used for I suspect that leaving them in might save some user of a never-updated RH9 system who might want to install this on their system. Or maybe we don't care about that, but I'll leave it to the maintainer to make that decision. It's not clear to me just which parts of the resulting package are under the LGPL and which are public domain, and the specfile needs to make this clear. See the "Multiple License Scenario" section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines for more information. It's a bit confusing to have the BuildRequires: and Source: tags in two places, since they're not specific to the subpackages. There's also no need to specify BuildArch: twice. rpmlint says: tzdata.noarch: W: invalid-license Public Domain, LGPLv2+ tzdata-java.noarch: W: invalid-license Public Domain, LGPLv2+ The license tag should be "Public Domain and LGPLv2+" tzdata-java.noarch: W: no-documentation Not a problem. Really, all that's needed is some comments and a couple of minor tweaks. If you like, I can attach a patch or just commit fixes to CVS, but I'm afraid I'll need help supplying the licensing breakdown. Checklist: * source files match upstream: 696b5fd267c991bb814a69b0bfff8ca4edf484f5859c955ec15a134a1d7045c9 tzcode2007j.tar.gz 0319a3dc08f05a92b5c409cc7278a45fa6194bcdfdd27918554bd3d8d6d33c6d tzdata2007j.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license (but it does have a syntax issue; see above) * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: tzdata-2007j-1.fc9.noarch.rpm tzdata = 2007j-1.fc9 = (nothing) tzdata-java-2007j-1.fc9.noarch.rpm tzdata-java = 2007j-1.fc9 = (nothing) * %check is present and all tests pass. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * acceptable content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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