[Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Feb 9 20:28:58 UTC 2007
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: avalon-logkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306
------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-09 15:28 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> MUST:
> X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output
>
> W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
>
> Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ?
>
It seems acceptable to use Development/Libraries/Java as the Group field, please
see:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html
> * 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)
>
Fixed.
> . do we need section free?
>
Got rid of it.
> * 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?
>
Yes, please see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366#c5
> X source files match upstream
> . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the
> tar.gz.
>
Fixed Source0 URL.
> * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on
> the other arches in Fedora Core presently)
>
> X BuildRequires are proper
> . are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in Requires(post{,un})?
>
Yes, please see:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00076.html
> * 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?
Please see the second part of the following comment:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c5
> * 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
> * final provides and requires are sane
>
> $ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm
> avalon-logkit-1.2.jar.so
> avalon-logkit = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7
>
> $ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm
> avalon-logkit-javadoc = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7
>
> $ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm
> /bin/sh
> /bin/sh
> avalon-framework >= 0:4.1.4
> java-gcj-compat
> java-gcj-compat
> jdbc-stdext
> jms
> libc.so.6
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
> libdl.so.2
> libgcc_s.so.1
> libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
> libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0)
> 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)
> servlet
>
> $ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.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
I've built avalon-framework (which has avalon-logkit as a BuildRequire) and it
builds fine.
> 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
I did a scratch build in brew with the new spec file and it builds fine.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list