[Bug 227064] Review Request: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 13 00:06:17 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: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227064
vivekl at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 19:06 EST -------
X suggests the subsection needs attention
+ is a positive comment
. is a specific comment about a problem
MUST:
X* package is named appropriately
. 0:1.2-2jpp -> 0:1.2-2jpp.1%{?dist}
. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage
- match upstream tarball or project name
+ The project is commons-io upstream (Apache) but since JPackage is
consistent with the jakarta-commons packages, this is fine IMO
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
+ OK
- 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
+ OK
- 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
+ ASL
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
+ None of the above 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)
+ 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
* correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
+ OK
X* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
- Fix this based on the link mentioned above
* 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: jakarta-commons-io 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".
W: jakarta-commons-io-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".
XW: jakarta-commons-io-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: jakarta-commons-io-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
. You can get rid of these warnings by implementing javadoc handling as
described in the following URL (since no %post/%postun is required):
https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html
W: jakarta-commons-io 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".
. Group warnings can be ignored in all cases.
W: jakarta-commons-io mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line
52)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
. Use :set expandtab and :%retab in vim to get rid of these
* 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
X* Vendor and distribution tag should not be used
. Please remove these
* 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)
+ OK
X * specfile is legible
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
. Minor fixes in formatting if possible (<80 character lines etc.)
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
+ Builds on mock
* BuildRequires are proper
+ Builds on mock
* 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
* specfile written in American English
+ OK
X* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
. Javadoc package should be changed to implement the new standard from
JPackage, see link mentioned above
. Add Requires(x) on /bin/rm, /bin/ln etc. as appropriate
- 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?
+ None of these apply
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
+ OK
* 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
+ None of these apply
X* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
. Use cp -p and install -p where possible
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
+ N/A
* 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
. Need %{_javadocdir}/%{_javadir} which are owned by jpackage-utils
Should add Requires(pre/postun) on jpackage-utils in javadoc package and
main package
* there should be no %files duplicates
+ OK
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
+ OK
* %clean should be present
+ OK
* %doc files should not affect runtime
+ OK
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
+ Not a webapp
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
+ OK, as long as the suggestions about naming and requires etc. are
implemented
rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/jakarta-commons-io-*
jakarta-commons-io = 0:1.2-2jpp
jakarta-commons-io-javadoc = 0:1.2-2jpp
rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/noarch/jakarta-commons-io-*
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
+ OK
* package should build on i386
+ OK, builds 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