[Bug 225931] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-lang
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Mar 29 18:14:33 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-lang
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225931
mwringe at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-03-29 14:14 EST -------
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
OK
* 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
OK
* license field matches the actual license.
OK
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
OK
* 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.
X utilities is spelled wrong
* correct buildroot
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
OK
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK
* 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
rpmlint jakarta-commons-lang-2.1-6jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-lang non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: jakarta-commons-lang strange-permission jakarta-commons-lang-notarget.patch 0660
W: jakarta-commons-lang strange-permission jakarta-commons-lang.spec 0640
W: jakarta-commons-lang strange-permission commons-lang-2.1-src.tar.gz 0660
X please fix file permissions
* changelog should be in proper 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
OK, looks good to me
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
OK, builds fine in mock
- 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
X sed and perl do not need to be included
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
X summary just states the package name
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
OK
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
OK, has a javadoc subpackage
* 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
OK
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
OK
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
OK, no translations
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
OK
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK
* 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
OK
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK
* %clean should be present
OK
* %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
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
rpmlint jakarta-commons-lang-2.1-6jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-lang non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
rpmlint jakarta-commons-lang-javadoc-2.1-6jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-lang-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
rpmlint jakarta-commons-lang-debuginfo-2.1-6jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
OK, the group warnings can be ignored
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
OK
* package should build on i386
OK
* package should build in mock
OK
--
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