[Bug 235113] Review Request: slf4j - Simple Logging Facade for Java

Wed Apr 4 16:17:34 UTC 2007

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: slf4j - Simple Logging Facade for Java

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235113

nsantos at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nsantos at redhat.com          |asimon at redhat.com

------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com  2007-04-04 12:17 EST -------
> ?? * match upstream tarball or project name
> ?? * try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
> consistency
---> I am not sure about those 2 points as the latest available version is 1.3.0

It's OK, we're repackaging from the jpackage project (see
http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/jpackage/1.7/generic/free/repodata/repoview/slf4j-0-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.html
). Agreed it's not the latest version/release, but it's the release needed to
satisfy dependencies.

> NO * specfile should be %{name}.spec
---> it is named: slf4j.spec but it should be slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.spec

This is OK, %name refers just to the package name. No version/release should be
included in the specfile name.

> ?? * OSI-approved

It's an X11 license, so it's OK (GPL compatible). See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

> ?? * is it covered by patents?

Distributed under X11 license, no explicit references to patents, so to the
best of our knowledge it's OK.

> ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches
> do)

To verify source/patches, follow instructions to obtain source and package it,
then run "md5sum" against the resulting tarfile, and compare to the tarfile
included in the srpm, they should match.
FWIW, md5sum on the tarfile in the srpm is in the specfile:
# md5sum: f34e95130cc3ae28095f31961427197d  slf4j-1.0-rc5.tar.gz

> NO * correct buildroot should be:
>   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
--> it is /slf4j-1.0-rc5/lib/ 

This is OK, buildroot in specfile is (see line 51):
BuildRoot:      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

> NA * if %{?dist} is used

dist is being used (see line 41):
Release:        %{release}.1%{?dist}

> NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc
--> included but not marked with %doc:

It's marked with %doc, see line 132:
%doc LICENSE.txt

> NO * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
--> The rpm contains unwanted directories and files: 
/.svn/, /test/, /TODO.txt, /src/.svn etc with .svn directories 

Those are either included upstream (TODO.txt, /test) or are a result of grabbing
the source from svn. They do not violate the FHS, so should be OK.

> NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
--> Cannot install source packages.

srpm doesn't need to be installed, just run rpmlint on it directly:
$ rpmlint slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.fc7.src.rpm 
W: slf4j non-standard-group System/Logging
W: slf4j invalid-license X11 License

Warnings are OK (see license info above)

> NO * specfile is legible
--> Those fields must be changed
> Name:           %{name}
> Version:        %{version}
> Release:        %{release}.1%{?dist}

Using the macros allows for name/version/release to be referred to later in the
specfile. And the definitions are grouped at the top of the specfile for clarity.

> ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
> ?? * BuildRequires are proper

You'll have to setup mock and try to build the package there, to verify that it
builds.

> ?? * use macros appropriately and consistently

Usage is consistent to other packages that have been approved.

> ?? * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps

It's used e.g. in line 127:
cp -pr docs/api/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/

> ?? * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present

defattrs present (see lines 131, 136):
%defattr(0644,root,root,0755)

> ?? * %clean should be present

Present (see lines 77/78):
%clean
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

> ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
> ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> ?? * package should build on i386
> ?? * package should build in mock

See comment above about setting up mock.

FWIW, here's the provides, requires, and rpmlint for the binary rpm:

$ rpm -qp slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.noarch.rpm --provides
slf4j = 0:1.0-0.rc5.1

$ rpm -qp slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.noarch.rpm --requires
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

$ rpmlint  slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.noarch.rpm
W: slf4j non-standard-group System/Logging
W: slf4j invalid-license X11 License

-- 
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.