[Bug 225940] Merge Review: javacc

Fri Jun 4 18:29:06 UTC 2010

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=225940

--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako at redhat.com> 2010-06-04 14:29:01 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
> review.
> javacc.src: W: strange-permission javacc.sh 0755L
> javacc.src: W: strange-permission jjtree 0755L
> javacc.src: W: strange-permission jjdoc 0755L
> javacc.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/javacc
> javacc-demo.noarch: W: no-documentation
> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
> 
> Those permissions are easily solved. You first copy those 3 shell
> scripts to bin/ and then install them from there. I would suggest
> chmodding them to non-executable inside src.rpm and only install them
> like this:
> 
> install -pD -T -m 755 %{SOURCE1} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir}/javacc.sh
> 
> no need to copy them to bin/ first I believe...
> Rest are false positives.
Fixed.

> 
> OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
> 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: The spec file must be written in American English. 
> OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
> 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.
> 
> It would be good to use %{version} in Source0 so it will be (a bit) easier to
> update in case any new releases
> appear...
Fixed.

> 
> OK(mock): 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.
> 
> Thing about installing those script applies of course...
> 
> OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
> 
> But spec file mixes cp and install. I'd suggest exchanging lines:
> mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mavenpomdir}
> cp -p pom.xml $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP-%{name}.pom
> 
> with:
> install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mavenpomdir}
> install -pm 644 pom.xml $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP-%{name}.pom
> 
> or even better:
> install -pD -T -m 644  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP-%{name}.pom
Fixed

> 
> OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
> OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
> large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
> size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
> 
> But maybe it would be good to rename -manual subpackage to -doc? On the other
> hand, adding provides/obsoletes is probably more messy now. I'll leave it up to
> you.
I prefer to keep it as manual.

> 
> OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
> the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
> if it is not present. 
> 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. 
> 
> 
> Other:
>  - you can remove "section free" definition
Done.

>  - I would suggest moving examples from /usr/share/javacc/examples to
> /usr/share/doc/javacc/examples    
Fixed.

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