[Bug 227041] Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Feb 12 17:38:03 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: Review Request: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227041
mwringe at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |mwringe at redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com 2007-02-12 12:38 EST -------
rpmlint bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp.src.rpm:
W: bea-stax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: bea-stax invalid-license Apache Software License 2
W: bea-stax mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51)
rpmlint rpms:
W: bea-stax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: bea-stax invalid-license Apache Software License 2
W: bea-stax no-documentation
W: bea-stax-api summary-ended-with-dot The StAX API.
W: bea-stax-api non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: bea-stax-api invalid-license Apache Software License 2
W: bea-stax-api no-documentation
W: bea-stax-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: bea-stax-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License 2
W: bea-stax-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: bea-stax-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
X - release tag does not follow guidelines
X - all jpp packages need to have %{?dist} added at the end
- if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
X not a proper license tag, remove the '2'
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
X source md5sums match, but project is no longer on project website
should probably change source link to the following, where the package still
exists
http://dist.codehaus.org/stax/distributions/stax-src-1.2.0_rc1-dev.zip
- if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
how to generate the the source drop; ie.
# svn export blah/tag blah
# tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
X buildroot does not follow fedora guidelines
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
X dist not used, but needs to be added since jpp package
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
X license test not included in package
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
X rplint gives many warnings, see above
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com>
- 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Packager tag should not be used
X this should be removed
* Vendor tag should not be used
X this should be removed
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
* specfile is legible
X too many commented lines
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
X missing build requires. This package is at very least missing ant
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
- see above errors
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
X license doc is not installed
* package should build on i386
- build on jpp so should still be buildable
* package should build in mock
- can't be built in mock, missing buildrequires.
--
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