[Bug 227107] Review Request: plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp - Plexus Velocity Component

Tue Mar 6 23:59:15 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: plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp - Plexus Velocity Component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227107

dbhole at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com           |tbento at redhat.com

------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com  2007-03-06 18:59 EST -------
X = error

MUST:
* package is named appropriately
 - 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
 OK

X * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
  - OSI-approved
  Unable to verify license of project. Please send note to user mailing list
  to clarify:

 http://plexus.codehaus.org/plexus-components/plexus-velocity/mail-lists.html

 - not a kernel module
 OK

 - not shareware
 OK

 - is it covered by patents?
 OK

 - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
 OK

 - no binary firmware
 OK

X * license field matches the actual license.
    Unable to verify license of project. Please send note to user mailing list to
    clarify:

    http://plexus.codehaus.org/plexus-components/plexus-velocity/mail-lists.html

* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
 N/A (see above)

* specfile name matches %{name}
 OK

* 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.
OK

* correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 OK

* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
 OK

X * license text included in package and marked with %doc
    Included license is from the maven castor plugin. This project has no
    license.txt included in the source, and the file should therefore be 
    removed.

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
 OK

* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
 OK

* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
 W: plexus-velocity non-standard-group Development/Java
 W: plexus-velocity no-documentation
 W: plexus-velocity-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
 W: plexus-velocity non-standard-group Development/Java

 All warnings are OK.

* changelog should be in one of these formats:
 OK

* Packager tag should not be used
 OK

* Vendor tag should not be used
 OK

* Distribution tag should not be used
 OK

* use License and not Copyright 
 OK

* Summary tag should not end in a period
 OK

* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
 OK

* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
 OK

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
 OK

X * BuildRequires are proper
  - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 Does not build in mock

* 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
 Line 141 is > 80, but it is okay because it is code, and more legible this
 way

* specfile written in American English
  OK

* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
 OK

* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
 OK

* don't use rpath
 OK

* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
 OK

* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
 OK

* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
 OK

* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
 OK

* don't use %makeinstall
 OK

* 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
 OK

* 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
 OK

* %doc files should not affect runtime
 OK

* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
 OK

* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
 OK

* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
 OK

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
 OK

* package should build on i386
 OK

X * package should build in mock
    Does not build

Notes:
Package builds in mock after removing the %dooc entry (which should go away 
anyway) and after adding a dependency on ant-nodeps.

-- 
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.