[Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp

[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 report.

Summary: Merge Review: regexp


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366





------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-02-08 20:37 EST -------
MUST:
X rpmlint on regexp srpm gives no output

W: regexp non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

Perhaps:  System Environment/Libraries ?

* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
X package meets packaging guidelines.

. BuildRoot incorrect.  As per this:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot

it should be:

%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

. do we need section free?

* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
X specfile is legible
. do we still need the crazy gcj_support line?

X source files match upstream
. I can't find the tarball.  Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the
tar.gz.

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on
the other arches in Fedora Core presently)

X BuildRequires are proper
. why is jpackage-utils in Requires(pre,post)?

* no locale data so no find_lang necessary
* package is not relocatable
X package owns all directories and files
. why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the
  %file section?
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
. javadoc package present
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* no desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
X final provides and requires are sane

$ rpm -qp --provides i386/regexp-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm 
regexp-1.4.jar.so  
regexp = 0:1.4-3jpp.1.fc7

$ rpm -qp --provides i386/regexp-javadoc-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm 
regexp-javadoc = 0:1.4-3jpp.1.fc7

Do we need a 'java' dependency somewhere?  Does the (erroneous, I think)
Requires(pre,post) on jpackage-utils imply a regular Requires on it?  Do we
need things in coreutils (rpm, ln) in Requires(post,postun)?

$ rpm -qp --requires i386/regexp-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm 
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
java-gcj-compat  
java-gcj-compat  
jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6
jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6
libc.so.6  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)  
libdl.so.2  
libgcc_s.so.1  
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)  
libgcj_bc.so.1  
libm.so.6  
libpthread.so.0  
librt.so.1  
libz.so.1  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)  

$ rpm -qp --requires i386/regexp-javadoc-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm 
/bin/ln  
/bin/rm  
/bin/rm  
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* package builds on i386
  ... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here
X package functions
  . I don't know how to test this package
X package builds in mock
  my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems
  here as the package currently builds fine in brew


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