[Bug 561456] Review Request: jnr-x86asm - Pure-java port of asmjit

[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=561456

--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-05-20 10:18:17 EDT ---
NOTOK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
NOTOK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming 
NOTOK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.

Output:
jnr-x86asm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asmjit -> Asmara, Asquith,
fajitas
jnr-x86asm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asmjit -> Asmara,
Asquith, fajitas
jnr-x86asm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jnr-x86asm-0.1.tgz
jnr-x86asm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asmjit -> Asmara, Asquith,
fajitas
jnr-x86asm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asmjit -> Asmara,
Asquith, fajitas
jnr-x86asm-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asm -> as, am, mas
jnr-x86asm-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asm -> as,
am, mas
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

While spec file explains how to create Source0 it fails to provide
reliable way to verify no changes happened between Source0 was taken
and building of RPM. You need to specify git hash (part of it at
least) of commit that should be checked out after cloning. Once some
version is released by developer, it would be ideal if git tag hash was
used instead.

This also applies to naming of package. This is most certainly a
pre-relase so naming convetions are these:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages


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 .
NOTOK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. 

License of package is obviously LGPLv3 not MIT

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.

License is included,  but it would be good to include COPYING* files
too especially since COPYING file has the text of license itself.

OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
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: 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. 
NOTOK: Each package must consistently use macros.
you mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Pick one and stick to it

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). 
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. 


Please fix those naming/Source0 URL/license/macro problems, so that I can
approve this package.

-- 
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.