[Bug 225927] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-discovery

Wed Apr 4 22:23:43 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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-discovery

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225927

------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com  2007-04-04 18:23 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> Please fix items marked by X:
> MUST:
> * package is named appropriately
>  - match upstream tarball or project name
>  - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
> consistency
>  - specfile should be %{name}.spec
>  - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
>    something)
>  - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
>    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
>  - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
>    not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
> * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
>  - OSI-approved
>  - not a kernel module
>  - not shareware
>  - is it covered by patents?
>  - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
>  - no binary firmware
> * license field matches the actual license.
> * license is open source-compatible.
>  - use acronyms for licences where common
> * specfile name matches %{name}
> * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
>  - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
>    how to generate the the source drop; ie.
>   # svn export blah/tag blah
>   # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
> * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> * correct buildroot
>  - should be:
>    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
> locations)
> X license text included in package and marked with %doc
Fixed
> - should the README.txt, RELEASE-NOTES.txt be marked as %doc as well?
> * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
> useless?)
> * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
> * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
>  - W: jakarta-commons-discovery non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java -
> this is OK
> * changelog are OK
> * Packager tag should not be used
> * Vendor tag should not be used
> * Distribution tag should not be used
> * use License and not Copyright
> * Summary tag should not end in a period
> * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
> * specfile is legible
>  - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
> * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
> * BuildRequires are proper
>  - builds in mock will flush out problems here
>  - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
>    bash
>    bzip2
>    coreutils
>    cpio
>    diffutils
>    fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
>    gcc
>    gcc-c++
>    gzip
>    make
>    patch
>    perl
>    redhat-rpm-config
>    rpm-build
>    sed
>    tar
>    unzip
>    which
> * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
> * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
> instructions)
> * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
> * specfile written in American English
> * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
>  - see
>   
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
> * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
> * don't use rpath
> * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
> * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
> * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
> * use macros appropriately and consistently
>  - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
> * don't use %makeinstall
> * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
>  - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
>    end of %install
> * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
> * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
> * package should probably not be relocatable
> * package contains code
>  - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
>  - in general, there should be no offensive content
> * package should own all directories and files
> * there should be no %files duplicates
> * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
> * %clean should be present
> * %doc files should not affect runtime
> * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
> * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
> will do this when this can be built in mock
> * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> will do this when this can be built in mock
> 
> SHOULD:
> * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
> * package should build on i386
> * package should build in mock
> It doesn't build in mock currently:
> javadoc:
>     [mkdir] Created dir: /builddir/build/BUILD/commons-discovery-0.4-src/dist
>     [mkdir] Created dir: /builddir/build/BUILD/commons-discovery-0.4-src/dist/docs
>     [mkdir] Created dir:
> /builddir/build/BUILD/commons-discovery-0.4-src/dist/docs/api
>   [javadoc] Generating Javadoc
>   [javadoc] Javadoc execution
>   [javadoc] Unknown option: -
>   [javadoc] Parsing
>
/builddir/build/BUILD/commons-discovery-0.4-src/src/java/org/apache/commons/discovery/ResourceNameIterator.java
> ....
>   [javadoc] 1 error.
> 
> and when copying the files over, it fails with:
> + mkdir -p
>
/var/tmp/jakarta-commons-discovery-0.4-2jpp.1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-discovery-0.4
> + cp -pr 'dist/docs/api/*'
>
/var/tmp/jakarta-commons-discovery-0.4-2jpp.1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-discovery-0.4
> cp: cannot stat `dist/docs/api/*': No such file or directory
> error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1025 (%install)
> 
> 
> RPM build errors:
>     Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1025 (%install)
> 

srpm that will actually build properly:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/335/jakarta-commons-discovery-0.4-2jpp.1.src.rpm

-- 
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.