[Bug 227049] Review Request: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J

Wed Feb 14 19:44:36 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: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227049

tbento at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com           |dbhole at redhat.com

------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com  2007-02-14 14:44 EST -------
Note:  When I did a rpmbuild, I had to disable the tests because one of them was
failing.  This needs to be fixed.

MUST:

X 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
 - 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
--> Should be 0:1.6.1-2jpp.1%{?dist}. 

* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
 - OSI-approved
--> Okay.

* license field matches the actual license.
--> Okay.

* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
--> Okay.

* specfile name matches %{name}
--> Okay.

* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
 - 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
--> Doesn't apply.

* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
--> Okay.

X correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
--> This needs to be fixed.

X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
--> See above.

X license text included in package and marked with %doc
--> Currently, this is not the case.  Under %files, we have
"%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt".  Should we change that to "%doc
%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt" or simply "%doc LICENSE.txt"??

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
--> Okay.

* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
--> Okay.

X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
--> W: dom4j non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
    W: dom4j strange-permission dom4j_rundemo.sh 0755
    W: dom4j mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 85)

* 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.
--> Okay.

* Packager tag should not be used
--> Okay.

X Vendor tag should not be used
--> Remove %Vendor.

X Distribution tag should not be used
--> Remove %Distribution.

* use License and not Copyright 
--> Okay.

* Summary tag should not end in a period
--> Okay.

* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
--> Okay.

* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
--> Okay.

X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
--> I made a note of this at the top.  

* BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
   bash
   bzip2
   coreutils
   cpio
   diffutils
   fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
   gcc
   gcc-c++
   gzip
   make
   patch
   perl
   redhat-rpm-config
   rpm-build
   sed
   tar
   unzip
   which
--> Okay.

X summary should be a short and concise description of the package
--> %Summary should not be the name of the package.

* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
--> Okay.

X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
--> Some lines have more than 80 characters on them.

* specfile written in American English
--> Okay.

* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
--> Okay.

* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
--> Okay.

* don't use rpath
--> Okay.

* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
--> Okay.

* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
--> Okay.

* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
--> Okay.

* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
--> Okay.

* don't use %makeinstall
--> Okay.

* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
--> Okay.

* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
--> Okay.

* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
--> Okay.

* package should probably not be relocatable
--> Okay.

* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
--> Okay.

* package should own all directories and files
--> Okay.

* there should be no %files duplicates
--> Okay.

* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
--> Okay.

* %clean should be present
--> Okay.

X %doc files should not affect runtime
--> Since I was not able to do a rpmbuild, I was not able to check this.

* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
--> Okay.

X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
--> Since I was not able to do a rpmbuild, I was not able to check this.  

X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
--> Since I was not able to do a rpmbuild, I was not able to check this.

SHOULD:

X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
--> See above.

X package should build on i386
--> See above. 

X package should build in mock
--> This needs to be done.

One other thing to be fixed: remove "define section free".

-- 
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.