[Bug 633215] Review Request: SimplyHTML - Application and a java component for rich text processing

Fri Oct 1 17:09:45 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=633215

--- Comment #5 from Mat Booth <fedora at matbooth.co.uk> 2010-10-01 13:09:44 EDT ---
Okay, this is a full review. Issues I have with the package follow the
checklist.

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:
[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x]  Buildroot is correct
[x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[!]  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 is included in %doc.
[-]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    :b4b594dea5d357909f3619a0c9eccb59
MD5SUM upstream package:b4b594dea5d357909f3619a0c9eccb59
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[!]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[!]  Package consistently uses macros.
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[!]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-]  Package uses %global not %define
[-]  If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x]  If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

=== Maven ===
[-]  Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-]  If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-]  If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[-]  Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[-]  Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for
%update_maven_depmap macro)

=== Other suggestions ===
[x]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} with
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} symlink
[x]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant 
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

=== Issues ===
1. Please don't mix spaces and tabs for spec file indentation.
2. The licence should be included as part of the main package instead of the
javadoc package.
3. The main package should BuildRequires/Requires "jpackage-utils" which owns
the directories you install stuff to.
4. Please be consistent with macro usage and use the %{buildroot} macro at the
top of the %clean and %install sections.
5. Please do not include a class-path attribute in your jar manifests. That
should be patched out if necessary.
6. The script you install does not work because you install it with incorrect
permissions. To make it work, instead of these three lines:

mkdir -p  %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
cp %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}
ln -s %(basename %{SOURCE1}) %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%(basename %{SOURCE1} .sh)

You only need this one line:

install -pD -m755 -T %{SOURCE1} %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%(basename %{SOURCE1}
.sh)

=== Other Notes ===
1. In order to get around "Javadocs" as a spelling error in rpmlint, I normally
say "API documentation" instead, but you can treat that as a false positive if
you wish.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

-- 
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.