Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 169789
Summary: | Review Request: tiobench | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Dmitry Butskoy <dmitry> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | David Lawrence <dkl> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | a.badger, aquini, fedora-extras-list | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
URL: | http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/SRPMS.fdr/tiobench-0.3.3-2.src.rpm | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2005-10-14 16:16:55 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
Embargoed: | |||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Thorsten Leemhuis
2005-10-03 16:44:09 UTC
If tiobench is licenced under the GNU GPL, the Debian GNU/Linux packages can be considered "derived work" which is put under the terms of the GPL again, too. (In reply to comment #1) > If tiobench is licenced under the GNU GPL, It is. > the Debian GNU/Linux > packages can be considered "derived work" which is put under the > terms of the GPL again, too. I wasn't 100% sure in this case. Thanks for clarifying. Remarks and nitpicks: - As something is compiled, use %{?dist} in release (to separate builds for different distros). - Mixed macro style. As used $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, use $RPM_OPT_FLAGS, not %{optflags} (or vice versa). - Additional manuals (Source1,2) are copied directly. It provides correct result now, but sometime in the future it will be possible that manuails will be compressed as .bz2, or will not be compressed at all. Therefore it is better to just uncompress these files and let rpm compress them later its own way. - If the additional manuals are present somewhere separately, it is better to specify full urls for them. Created attachment 119975 [details]
suggestions for spec file
To be more clear, here is a patch for spec file with my suggestions.
Dmitry, thx for reviewing (In reply to comment #3) > Remarks and nitpicks: > - As something is compiled, use %{?dist} in release (to separate builds for > different distros). dist is still optional in fedora-extras. But I added it, I just forgot it. :) > - Mixed macro style. Changed > - Additional manuals (Source1,2)[...]let rpm compress them later its own way. Changed, but in a different way > - If the additional manuals are present somewhere separately, it is better to > specify full urls for them. Sure -- I did find a trustworthy URL (besides the debian package -- and including that as source is IMHO overkill) Spec Name or Url: http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/SPECS.fdr/tiobench.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/SRPMS.fdr/tiobench-0.3.3-2.src.rpm BTW, "URL" field in the bugzilla ticket should be the same "URL" as in the spec file -- i.e., it should quickly point people to the primary site of upstream. (The full tarball's url is already in the spec file anyway). rpmlint OK license OK source matches upstream compile OK works fine APPROVED (In reply to comment #6) > BTW, "URL" field in the bugzilla ticket should be the same "URL" as in the spec > file -- i.e., it should quickly point people to the primary site of upstream. > (The full tarball's url is already in the spec file anyway). Mmm, quote from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora%20Extras&format=extras-review "Help: URL the new package or [...]." >[...] > APPROVED thx. imported, added to owners, branches request, build on devel succeed, FC-4 and FC-3 building > Mmm, quote from
> .....
> "Help: URL the new package or [...]."
Yes, but SRPM and SPEC urls usually specified in the initial comment. Therefore
people began to specify link to upstream here.
(In reply to comment #8) > > Mmm, quote from > > ..... > > "Help: URL the new package or [...]." > > Yes, but SRPM and SPEC urls usually specified in the initial comment. Therefore > people began to specify link to upstream here. That's more than okay for me, but then IMHO someone (hint) should file a bug against bugzilla to get that comment changed ;) Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: tiobench New Branches: el4 f-13 f-14 Owners: orphan I mistakenly retired this package from that collections while trying to add myself to them. Please, I'd like to have that branches reassigned to me. Best regards I can't work out what you are requesting for us to do. The three new branches you are requesting already exist, and we wouldn't make "orphan" the owner of a new branch anyway. If you want to take ownership of branches, log into pkgdb and take ownership of them. Figred out that the branches were Retired. Fixed. |