[Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Feb 12 22:27:01 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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050
vivekl at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |tbento at redhat.com
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 17:26 EST -------
X suggests the subsection needs attention
+ is a positive comment
. is a specific comment about a problem
MUST:
X * package is named appropriately
. 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage
- match upstream tarball or project name
+ MD5SUMs match
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
+ Consistent with JPackage
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
+ OK
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
+ OK
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
+ N/A
- 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
+ N/A
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
+ LGPL OK.
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
+ None of these apply
* license field matches the actual license.
+ OK
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
+ OK
* specfile name matches %{name}
+ OK
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
+ No patches, MD5 OK
- 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
+ N/A
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
+ OK
X correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
. See above about naming convention
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
+ OK
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
+ N/A
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
+ OK
X* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm and rpms gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
W: dtdparser non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".
E: dtdparser tag-not-utf8 %changelog
The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8.
. use iconv to convert to UTF8
E: dtdparser non-utf8-spec-file dtdparser.spec
The character encoding of the spec file is not UTF-8. Convert it for
example using iconv(1).
. use iconv to convert to UTF8
W: dtdparser mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 36)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
. Replace the tabs with spaces (:set tabexpand :%retab in vim)
W: dtdparser non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".
E: dtdparser tag-not-utf8 %changelog
The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8.
. use iconv to convert to UTF8
W: dtdparser-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".
+ All group warnings can be ignored.
E: dtdparser-javadoc tag-not-utf8 %changelog
The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8.
. use iconv to convert to UTF8
E: dtdparser-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/dtdparser-1.21/package-list
+ I checked the build root on a local build and this seems to be created by
the javadoc task in ant. This can probably be ignored?
* 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.
+ OK
* Packager tag should not be used
+ OK
* Vendor and distribution tag should not be used
+ OK
* use License and not Copyright
+ OK
* Summary tag should not end in a period
+ OK
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
+ N/A
* specfile is legible
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
+ Seems OK, built on mock
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
+ OK
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
+ OK
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
. minor fixes needed
* specfile written in American English
+ OK
X make a -doc sub-package if necessary
Standardize the javadoc package handling around
https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html
- 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
+ The above dont apply
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
+ N/A
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
+ RPM_BUILD_ROOT seems to be used consistently
* don't use %makeinstall
+ N/A
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
+ N/A
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
+ OK
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
+ None used yet
* package should probably not be relocatable
+ Non relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
+ OK
X* package should own all directories and files
+ Use jpackage-utils in Requires(x), Requires since installing to
%{_javadir}/%{_javadocdir}
* there should be no %files duplicates
+ OK
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
+ OK
* %clean should be present
+ OK
X* %doc files should not affect runtime
. javadoc should use %doc for its files
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
+ Not a webapp
X* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPM
rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/dtdparser-*
dtdparser = 0:1.21-3jpp
dtdparser-javadoc = 0:1.21-3jpp
rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/noarch/dtdparser-*
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
. Requires needs jpakage-utils as mentioned earlier
. Should have a requires on java?
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
+ OK
* package should build on i386
+ Builds on mock
* package should build in mock
+ OK
--
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