Bug 916687

I am taking this review.

Currently it fails to build on Koji:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5066754

Please make sure that the package builds and preferably post here a link to a scratch build on Koji.

Ok, I will remember this.

This issue is caused by BR: jvnet-parent. Already updated spec and srpm.

Spec URL: http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-el.spec
SRPM URL: http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-el-2.2.5-1.fc19.src.rpm
Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5066901

Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

rpmlint
-------
Checking: glassfish-el-javadoc-2.2.5-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


Summary:
--------

Can you explain me the licensing situation? which files are under Apache license?

From what I can see this package is "CDDL and GPLv2 with exceptions". If this the case then you should fix the license tag and remove the text of Apache license.

I thought it was same with el-api. Now I changed it to "CDDL and GPLv2 with exceptions".

Already update spec file and srpm file.

Sorry, it should be "CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions"

Note: *or* instead of *and*.

fixed!

Spec URL: http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-el.spec
SRPM URL: http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-el-2.2.5-1.fc19.src.rpm

It looks good now.
Approved.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: glassfish-el
Short Description: J2EE Expression Language Implementation
Owners: davidx
Branches: f18
InitialCC: mizdebsk

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: glassfish-el
Short Description: J2EE Expression Language Implementation
Owners: davidx
Branches: f18
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).