[Bug 225653] Merge Review: concurrent

Wed Apr 4 15:26:40 UTC 2007

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 at redhat.com  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.