[Bug 187304] Review Request: echoping latency meassure tool

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: echoping latency meassure tool


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187304


fedora.wickert at arcor.de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fedora.wickert at arcor.de
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From fedora.wickert at arcor.de  2006-04-01 14:04 EST -------
NOTE:
I cannot approve your package atm, 
a) because of the MUST items that need to be fixed first (see below) and
b) because I'm not approved for reviewing yet, this is my first review. 
   @FE-list: Feedback is welcome, especially on the openssl license.

The license is GPL with the following addition:

> The following note is not part of the GPL:
> 
> echoping adds a small permission to the GPL: This program is released
> under the GPL with the additional exemption that compiling, linking,
> and/or using the OpenSSL library is allowed.
> 
> See <URL:http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2> and
> <URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200210/msg00113.html>
> for details.
> 
> 		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
> 		       Version 2, June 1991
> [...]

So IMO this package should be released unter GPL since the GPL is more
restrictive than the "BSDish" license of openssl, right?

REVIEW: 

sha1sum echoping-5.2.0-0.src.rpm
aaa4f871e4950411572a873eb7ef83046ecb2f2e  echoping-5.2.0-0.src.rpm
md5sum echoping-5.2.0-0.src.rpm
caf9a5c5d12ca848ac68eaa5c941e5f4  echoping-5.2.0-0.src.rpm

Good:
- rpmlint clean on all packages
- package and spec naming OK for FE
- package meets FE guidelines
- license GPL 
- license field in specfile correct
- spec file written in English
- sources match upstream by both md5 and sha1 sums
- package builds OK on FC5 i386 and in mock for rawhide i386
- BR's OK, no duplicates
- no locales to worry about
- no shared libraries, no need for ldconfig
- relocatable
- no duplicate files
- package installs and removes fine
- %clean section present and correct
- no scriptlets needed
- code, not content
- no large docs
- docs don't affect runtime
- no static libraries or headers to worry about
- no pkgconfigs to worry about
- package doesn't own other package's directories
- no desktop file needed
- package works fine on FC5 i386

Needswork:
- MUST: increase the release to -1, -0* is not a valid release (at least for a
stable version)
"The release number is how the maintainer marks build revisions,
_starting_from_1_", see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-5ea39bbc33cf351b41b51325ac3527eff4c58dac
- MUST: directory ownership or permissions issues as %defattr is wrong: Change
"%defattr(-, root, root)" to "%defattr(-, root, root,-)"

- SHOULD: Spec could be a little more legible. IMHO all FE specfiles should
start with a fresh fedora-newrpmspec
- SHOULD: make macro usage more consistent: Please use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT instead
of %{buildroot}
- SHOULD: please change "%{__make} %{?_smp_mflags}" to "make %{?_smp_mflags}"
(just for simplicity, there's no need to need to cover make with a macro)
- SHOULD: remove the empty NEWS from %doc.
- SHOULD: I suggest you add DETAILS to the %doc section as well.
- SHOULD: Please change "Initial RPM release" to something like "Initial Fedora
Extras release". There are already some echoping rpms in 3rd party repos.

NEEDSWORK.

I have cleaned up you specfile and fixed above issues. Attaching a patch.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.