[Bug 610079] Review Request: bindex - Bundle Manifest Header Mapper

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610079

--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-07-28 09:48:05 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
bindex.src: W: invalid-url Source0: bindex.r96.svn.tar.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

NEEDSWORK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.

I am not sure how you got to "Version: 2.2". I couldn't find anything
in the archive/homepage suggesting that's the last version of the
package. This seems like the snapshot pre-release of version 0. So it
should be something like:

Version: 0
Release: 0.1.svn96%{?dist}

You are welcome to prove me wrong. One way or the other it would be
nice to get in touch with upstream and get them to actually release
versioned binary release (e.g. bindex-%{version}.zip/tar.xx)

OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.  .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: All independent sub-packages have License of their own (if it exists)
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
NEEDSWORK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

You define a LOT of macros that are only used once:
 * svnRev/svnURL
 * bnd
 * installJAR
 * rmFiles/rmFiles_lst

Please don't do this, it just makes the spec file harder to read
without adding any benefit. I know it can be tempting to treat spec
file as a bash script, but think of it more as a "recipe" where you
just define the ingredients and few hints how to cook it :-) Make it
as simple as possible.

Plus one more thing. Instead of creating lnSysJar macro, use
build-classpath or build-classpath-directory commands. They have been
created especially for this situation. I noticed you used
build-classpath in the spec file...so maybe you just didn't know about
-directory version of it? I know it doesn't work well with renames
when creating symlinks, so maybe you would have to patch the
bindex.bnd file or something like that...I still find it better
than custom functions that recreate those already provided. 

OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. 
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. 
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time. 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 


That's about it for now I guess

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.