[Bug 226110] Merge Review: lucene

[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=226110

Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |sochotni at redhat.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |sochotni at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-10-11 11:52:55 EDT ---
I'll be doing the merge review

Package Review
==============

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:
lucene.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided lucene-devel
Explained in spec

lucene.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/lucene-2.4.1/CHANGES.txt
lucene.src:40: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 31, tab:line 40)

convert respecitve files to UTF-8 and spaces

lucene-contrib.noarch: W: no-documentation
lucene-contrib.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest
/usr/share/java/lucene-contrib/lucene-lucli-2.4.1.jar
needs to be fixed

lucene-demo.noarch: W: no-documentation

lucene-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
lucene-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm

javadoc subpackage symlinks should be created during install

5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

[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.
[!]  Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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: ASL 2.0
[x]  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
subpackages should have LICENSE.txt 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    : ad46595439240e10387fcbf7647705db
MD5SUM upstream package: ad46595439240e10387fcbf7647705db
[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.
Package is missing Requires on Java/jpackage-utils

[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]  Permissions on files are set properly.
use defattr(-,root,root,-) in files section
[x]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x]  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
[!]  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.

=== Other suggestions ===
[x]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} with
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} symlink
[-]  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)
[!]  Latest version is packaged.
Latest version is 3.0.2 (2.9.3 in 2.x line)
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64


=== Issues ===
1. rpmlint issues
2. buildroot
3. license in independent sub-packages
4. proper Requires
5. if possible package latest version (if compatibility permits)

=== Other ===
1. it might be good idea to try if tests work now (if not add comment
with date when it was last tried)

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