[Bug 229416] Review Request: qpidj - qpid java implementation
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Feb 20 22:26:57 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: qpidj - qpid java implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=229416
nsantos at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Review Request: qpidj - qpid|Review Request: qpidj - qpid
|java implementation |java implementation
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |dbhole at redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From nsantos at redhat.com 2007-02-20 17:26 EST -------
qpidj-0.1-4rhm.src.rpm
Legend:
OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify
MUST:
OK * package is named appropriately
OK - match upstream tarball or project name
OK - 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
OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
OK - OSI-approved
OK - not a kernel module
OK - not shareware
OK - is it covered by patents?
OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
OK - no binary firmware
OK * license field matches the actual license.
OK * license is open source-compatible.
OK * specfile name matches %{name}
OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
NO * correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
--
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot
--
NO * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
--
dist not used
--
NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc
--
included but not marked with %doc
--
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
--
$ rpmlint qpidj-0.1-4rhm.src.rpm
W: qpidj summary-ended-with-dot Java implementation of Apache Qpid.
W: qpidj non-standard-group Development/Java
W: qpidj mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 3)
W: qpidj class-path-in-manifest /jmscts-0.5-b2.jar
--
OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:
OK * Packager tag should not be used
OK * Vendor tag should not be used
OK * use License and not Copyright
NO * Summary tag should not end in a period
--
Summary: Java implementation of Apache Qpid.
--
OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * specfile is legible
?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
?? * BuildRequires are proper
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
NO * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
--
description == summary
--
NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
--
a number of lines are longer than 80 chars
--
OK * specfile written in American English
OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK * don't use rpath
NO * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
--
not marked with (noreplace):
%config %{_datadir}/%{name}/etc/*
--
NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK * use macros appropriately and consistently
OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
NA * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK * package should probably not be relocatable
OK * package contains code
OK * package should own all directories and files
OK * 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
NA * 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
?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
SHOULD:
NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
--
included but not marked with %doc
--
?? * package should build on i386
?? * package should build in mock
--
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