[Bug 225653] Merge Review: concurrent

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com  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.