[Bug 225888] Merge Review: hsqldb

Mon Jan 24 17:17:41 UTC 2011

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=225888

--- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2011-01-24 12:17:39 EST ---
Package Review
==============

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:
hsqldb.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US servlets -> servants,
serviettes, serviette
hsqldb.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/hsqldb
hsqldb.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /var/lib/hsqldb/lib/servlet.jar
/usr/share/java/servlet.jar

This file doesn't seem to be provided by servlet25 package
(tomcat6-servlet-2.5-api in our case). This is mostly likely a bug in
tomcat6 that should be fixed together with providing
java/servlet25.jar so that `build-classpath servlet25` will work.

hsqldb.noarch: E: non-readable /var/lib/hsqldb/sqltool.rc 0600L
hsqldb.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/hsqldb/data 0700L
hsqldb.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hsqldbRunUtil
No problem, explained before

hsqldb.noarch: E: subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/hsqldb

This seems to suggest that you should use /var/lock/subsys/ directory
for creating and managing lock file. Hsqldb init script seems to
contain PIDFILE definitions..maybe changing that would fix the rpmlint
warnings? FYI, I don't know of any rule against using upstream init
script as long as it works, and I am guessing you have better things
to do than to solve non-existent bugs :-)

hsqldb.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US servlets -> servants,
serviettes, serviette
hsqldb.src: W: strange-permission hsqldb-1.8.0-standard.cfg 0755L

655?

[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 definition is not present
[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: BSD
[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.
[x]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own

-demo sub-package requires main package but still has license (no need to)

[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    : e0d6144108fc05e355bb19684ac4c83a
MD5SUM upstream package: e0d6144108fc05e355bb19684ac4c83a
[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.
[x]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[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
[x]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[!]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils

This is missing

[x]  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.
[x]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x]  pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom
file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly)

=== Maven ===
[x]  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
[x]  Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]  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]  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.
Tested on: rawhide-x86_64

=== Issues ===

1. re-create init file from scratch? (no use probably, just make sure
it works => start/stop actually works correctly)
2. license in demo subpackage
3. jpackage-utils requires in javadoc subpackage
4. permissions of config file inside srpm
5. now the javadoc subpackage doesn't have -version but there is no
%pre script that will make sure update will work (symlink->dir change).
6. servlet symlink

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