[Bug 227111] Review Request: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Feb 16 05:16:17 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: qdox-1.5-2jpp - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227111
pcheung at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|pcheung at redhat.com |nsantos at redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com 2007-02-16 00:16 EST -------
X indicates items required fixing:
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
- 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
* specfile name matches %{name}
X 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 http://svn.qdox.codehaus.org/tags/QDOX_1_5/qdox
# tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
Need to specify how to get to the src tar ball, also it's now using svn instead
of cvs
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* 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)
Release needs to be fixed.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: qdox invalid-license Apache-style Software License
W: qdox mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 48)
* 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 Vendor tag should not be used
X Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
X specfile is legible
- remove BuildArch: noarch when adding gcj support.
- BR: maven should be fixed, use ant instead.
- get rid of BR for mockmaker, jmock
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* 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
* 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 $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
java
jpackage-utils
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
qdox = 0:1.5-2jpp.1
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires
/home/pcheung/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung at to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides
/home/pcheung/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
qdox-javadoc = 0:1.5-2jpp.1
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
rpmlint on rpmbuild built on i386:
W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style
W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style
W: qdox-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: qdox-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License style
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
will try this out when byaccj is available in mock.
spec file and srpms at:
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/226/qdox.spec
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/227/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm
--
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