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.