[Bug 472658] Review Request: shmpps - Shared Memory driver for PPS signals

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472658


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
             Blocks|                            |182235(FE-Legal)
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-07-13 22:07:05 EDT ---
It would be nice to get those explanations into the package %description;
enlightening me helps (well, theoretically), but enlightening everyone helps
more.

Builds fine; rpmlint says:
  shmpps.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 27)
Not a big deal; fix it if you like.

  shmpps.x86_64: W: no-documentation
Not a problem.

  shmpps.x86_64: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/rc.d/init.d/shmpps $prog
rpmlint doesn't understand many common idioms in initscripts; you should ignore
this.

I don't see any value in using "%{__install}" instead of just "install", but if
you really want to use macros, you need to use %{__rm} and indeed
%{__install_p}.

I'm afraid I don't understand the licensing here.  Which of the three files in
the binary rpm are public domain?  Two of the files are supplied by you, and
one is a mix of PD and one of the four different licenses the NTP code is
under, so I can't see how the resulting binary could possibly be PD.  

It looks to me like the time_shm and the attach_shm code come from
refclock_shm.c, which according to the NTP spec file is under the MIT license,
so I think the resulting binary is MIT licensed and nothing in the final
package is PD.  I've blocked FE-Legal for a double-check, however.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:          
   0c48634e3a5068fb69def61daae44656a5a4cd36f537e0c12b893806df6c5598  shmpps.tar
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
X specfile does not use macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
X description could use some elaboration.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field does not seem to match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   config(shmpps) = 1.03-1.fc12
   shmpps = 1.03-1.fc12
   shmpps(x86-64) = 1.03-1.fc12
  =
   /bin/sh
   /sbin/chkconfig
   /sbin/service
   config(shmpps) = 1.03-1.fc12
   ntp

* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets are OK (service registration).
* code, not content.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.