Bug 225653

Please review updated spec file and srpm at:
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/357/concurrent.spec
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/358/concurrent-1.3.4-5jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm

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

(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

> * 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

(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

(In reply to comment #4)
...
> > > 
> > 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?

I've listed the Sun License and a link to the pdf in the original mail, and it
was described as Public Domain, feel free to further discuss that in that
discussion thread if you see fit.

...
> X Do we want to be advertising for that book?
Good catch, got rid of it.

...
> * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
> X missing a -p on the first cp in %prep
Fixed.

> 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
Fixed.

New spec file and srpm uploaded at the same location.

(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> ...
> > > > 
> > > 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?
> 
> I've listed the Sun License and a link to the pdf in the original mail, and it
> was described as Public Domain, feel free to further discuss that in that
> discussion thread if you see fit.
Ok, its seems to be ok
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-April/msg00014.html


Everything looks good

APPROVED

Package built in brew.