[Bug 478806] Review Request: simh - A highly portable, multi-system emulator

[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=478806


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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #13 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-11-12 18:47:00 EDT ---
I think you misunderstood; I don't think it's necessary to remove all mention
of ibm1130 from the makefile, I just found changes to the "nopatents" tarball
(which is misnamed, since the issue isn't one of patents) that went beyond
actually deleting files.  Now that I can see the script which generates that
file, I can see you sed that out, which is an unusual way to do it but which
doesn't violate any guidelines as far as I know.

%description mentions the removed IBM 1130 support.  I also don't know if the
33 number is still accurate.

In a multiple licensing scenario, you need to include some comment in your spec
indicating which files are under which license. 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios
Spot provided that information in comment 9 so this should be a trivial
addition.

I did try to test these, but honestly I've no idea what I'm doing so I can't
really do that.  I did run simh-altair and entered "go"; it segfaulted
immediately.  simh-hp2100 just spun forever; I let it run for five minutes and
it did nothing.  The others seemed to behave as I'd expect (breaking with HALT
instructions and the like.  Can you check those two and verify that they work
as expected for you?

* source files match upstream (confirmed by manual inspection). 
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
X description still mentions removed content.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   simh = 3.8.1-2.fc12
   simh(x86-64) = 3.8.1-2.fc12
  =
   libpcap.so.1()(64bit)

* owns the directory it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

-- 
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.