[Bug 227125] Review Request: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 13 18:56:07 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: xom-1.0-3jpp - XML Pull Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227125
nsantos at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-13 13:55 EST -------
xom-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm
Legend:
OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify
MUST:
OK * package is named appropriately
OK - match upstream tarball or project name
OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec
OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
OK - 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
OK - not a kernel module
OK - not shareware
?? - is it covered by patents?
OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
OK - no binary firmware
OK * license field matches the actual license.
OK * license is open source-compatible.
OK - use acronyms for licences where common
OK * 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
OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
NO * correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
--
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot
--
NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc
--
included but not marked with %doc:
%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt
--
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
--
$ rpmlint xom-1.0-3jpp.src.rpm
W: xom non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
E: xom unknown-key GPG#c431416d
--
OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com>
- 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
OK * Packager tag should not be used
NO * Vendor tag should not be used
--
Vendor: JPackage Project
--
OK * use License and not Copyright
OK * Summary tag should not end in a period
NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * 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
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
OK * specfile written in American English
OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK * don't use rpath
NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
NO * use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
--
...
install -m 644 build/%{name}-%{version}.jar \
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar
(cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} && for jar in *-%{version}.jar; do ln -sf ${jar}
`echo $jar| sed "s|-%{version}||g"`; done)
...
--
OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK * package should probably not be relocatable
OK * package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
OK * package should own all directories and files
OK * there should be no %files duplicates
OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK * %clean should be present
NA * %doc files should not affect runtime
NA * 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
?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
SHOULD:
NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
--
included but not marked with %doc:
%{_datadir}/doc/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt
--
?? * package should build on i386
NO * package should build in mock
--
Cannot find build req tagsoup. Exiting.
--
--
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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list