[Bug 785700] Review Request: relaxngcc - RELAX NG Compiler Compiler

Tue Feb 21 22:03:01 UTC 2012

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=785700

David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |david at gnsa.us
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |david at gnsa.us
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from David Nalley <david at gnsa.us> 2012-02-21 17:03:00 EST ---

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

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:
[ke4qqq at nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint relaxngcc.spec
../SRPMS/relaxngcc-1.12-1.fc16.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/relaxngcc-*
relaxngcc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yacc -> yak, Yacc, ya cc
relaxngcc.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency msv-xsdlib
relaxngcc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yacc -> yak, Yacc, ya
cc
relaxngcc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/relaxngcc-1.12/readme.txt
relaxngcc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/relaxngcc-1.12/HOWTO-readAutomata.txt
relaxngcc.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/relaxngcc.jar
relaxngcc-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
relaxngcc-manual.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/relaxngcc-manual-1.12/ja/sample1.java
relaxngcc-manual.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/relaxngcc-manual-1.12/en/ngcc.css
relaxngcc-manual.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/relaxngcc-manual-1.12/en/sample1.java
relaxngcc-manual.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/relaxngcc-manual-1.12/ja/ngcc.css
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.

So a bit curious why you are rming stuff in %present

[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].
[!]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:

This doesn't look like ASL to me, more like one of the BSDs

[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
Both the subpackages need this. 

[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.
[ke4qqq at nalleyx200 SOURCES]$ md5sum relaxngcc-20031218.zip*
e79a12522d22cdda704376daf3c2e8b2  relaxngcc-20031218.zip
e79a12522d22cdda704376daf3c2e8b2  relaxngcc-20031218.zip.1

[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 or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[X]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[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.
[-]  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
[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
Though I'd argue you aren't removing them - only renaming - please consider
rming

[X]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-]  pom files has correct add_maven_depmap

=== 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 "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[-]  Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[ -]  Packages DOES NOT 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.

-- 
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.