[Bug 591298] Review Request: apache-commons-codec - Implementations of common encoders and decoders

[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=591298

--- Comment #7 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-05-13 10:46:30 EDT ---
Noted that this is re-review


OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
OUTPUT:
rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/{SRPMS,RPMS/noarch}/apache-commons-codec*-1.4-6*rpm
apache-commons-codec.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/apache-commons-codec
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

False positive, OK

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.  .
OK : The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
OK: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Other problems:
- required for renames: check for proper Provides/Obsoletes was OK
- these are quite old:
> Provides:      %{short_name} = %{version}-%{release}
> Obsoletes:     %{short_name} < %{version}-%{release}

And should be fairly safe to remove them for rawhide F14+ (currently on F-12
only plexus-xmlrpc does and it will have to be revised anyway)


What is the reason to have:
> # enable OSGi automatic dep solving
> %define _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
> %define __find_provides /usr/lib/rpm/osgideps.pl -p
> %define __find_requires /usr/lib/rpm/osgideps.pl -r
I believe they are not used/needed anywhere in the spec file. If they really
are needed, define them with %global. Isn't maven supposed to take care of
this?

- javadoc sub-package must have jpackage-utils in Requires (it is
 owner of javadoc directory
- jpackage-utils should be required in post/postun for %update_maven_depmap
- provide backward compatible pom file with old GROUP_ID/ARTIFACT_ID.
jakarta-commons-codec
 used %add_to_maven_depmap %{short_name} %{short_name} %{version} JPP
%{short_name}

Suggestions (Not required for + :-) ):
- since you are already using install for copying files, why not use
 it for creating dirs too? Instead of:
> mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}
use
install -d -m 755 %{buildroot}%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}

- another one:
> (cd %{buildroot}%{_javadocdir} && ln -sf %{name}-%{version} %{name})

Why create subshell when simple
ln -s %{name}-%{version} %{buildroot}%{_javadocdir}/%{name}
would be enough?

- You also have more commons packages so I suggest you use %global to
define base_name as codec, short_name as commons-%{base_name} and use
base name in URL/Source0, elsewhere as needed. You will then be able to re-use
spec file changes more easily in the future.

-- 
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.