[Bug 227042] Review Request: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Feb 15 23:01:53 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: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042
tbento at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution| |NOTABUG
AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com |jjohnstn at redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com 2007-02-15 18:01 EST -------
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
--> Changed %Release to 2jpp.1%{?dist}.
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
--> Okay.
X license field matches the actual license.
--> The %License tag is currently GPL. However, on their website
(http://byaccj.sourceforge.net/) it states that it has no license. The jpackage
website (http://www.jpackage.org/browser/rpm.php?jppversion=1.7&id=27) states
that it is GPL, but on the SourceForge website
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/byaccj), it states that it is Public Domain.
There is no LICENSE.txt file (or anything along those lines) included in the
package, so I presume its license is Public Doman, so I changed it to Public
Domain. What do you think???
* 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
--> Okay.
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
--> Okay.
X correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
--> Fixed.
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
--> Okay.
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
--> License text is not included (not sure what the license is - see above).
Does the license text need to be included?
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* 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: byaccj non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
(This warning can 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.
--> Okay.
* Packager tag should not be used
--> Okay.
X Vendor tag should not be used
--> Removed.
X Distribution tag should not be used
--> Removed.
* 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.
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
--> Okay.
X BuildRequires are proper
i - 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
--> gcc and make were both listed as BuildRequires, so I removed them.
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
--> Okay.
X description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
--> The description mentions a new flag "-J". I left it, but should that
sentence be left in???
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
--> Okay.
* 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.
* %doc files should not affect runtime
--> Okay.
* 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
--> rpm -qp --provides /home/tbento/reviews/byaccj/RPMS/i386/* :
byaccj = 0:1.11-2jpp.1
byaccj-debuginfo = 0:1.11-2jpp.1
--> rpm -qp --provides /home/tbento/reviews/byaccj/RPMS/i386/*:
byaccj = 0:1.11-2jpp.1
byaccj-debuginfo = 0:1.11-2jpp.1
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
--> rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/byaccj-1.11-2jpp.1.i386.rpm:
W: byaccj non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
--> This warning can be ignored.
W: byaccj wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/byaccj-1.11/tf.y
--> This has been fixed.
SHOULD:
X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
--> See above.
* package should build on i386
--> Okay.
I also removed the "%define section free".
The spec file and source rpm can be found at the following URL:
http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/byaccj/
Thanks
--
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