[Bug 225928] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el

[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: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-el


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928


fitzsim at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com  2007-02-08 22:07 EST -------
MUST:
* is this appropriate for Fedora?
X rpmlint on jakarta-commons-el srpm gives no output

  $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/SRPMS/jakarta-commons-el-1.0-7jpp.1.src.rpm
  W: jakarta-commons-el non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

  Group should be just: "Development/Libraries".

  Here's a list of valid groups:

  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups

  $ rpmlint
/home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/jakarta-commons-el-javadoc-1.0-7jpp.1.i386.rpm
  W: jakarta-commons-el-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
  W: jakarta-commons-el-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
  W: jakarta-commons-el-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm

  Group should be just: "Documentation".

  Why the %post/%postun sections?

  %post javadoc
  rm -f %{_javadocdir}/%{name}
  ln -s %{name}-%{version} %{_javadocdir}/%{name}

  %postun javadoc
  if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then
      rm -f %{_javadocdir}/%{name}
  fi

  %files javadoc
  %defattr(0644,root,root,0755)
  %doc %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}
  %ghost %doc %{_javadocdir}/%{name}

  Why not just include the symlink in the javadoc subpackage and eliminate the
  use of %post, %postun and %ghost?

* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
* package meets packaging guidelines.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
* specfile is legible
* source files match upstream
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
* find_lang usage correct
* package is not relocatable
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* gcj .so files need not be in a -devel sub-package
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* binary RPMs function on x86
* final provides and requires are sane

SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* description and summary sections don't have translations (OK)
* package builds in mock
* package builds on i386
* package functions as described
X scriptlets should be sane

  See above questions about %post and %postun sections.

* no -devel package
* no pkgconfig files


-- 
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.