[Bug 453781] Review Request: sat4j - A library of SAT solvers written in Java
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jul 14 18:39:19 UTC 2008
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: sat4j - A library of SAT solvers written in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453781
dbhole at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com 2008-07-14 14:39 EST -------
Items with issues are prefixed with an "X:"
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- 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
N/A
- 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
- don't use non-Latin, non-numeric, non-"-,.,_,+" characters in the name
OK
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines
* 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
OK
* license field matches the actual license.
OK
* no pre-built binaries (except for bootstrapping)
X: jmock jar exists in both SOURCE files, and the spec file doesn't try to
remove it. Since jmock is used only for testing, this is probably okay. But
please keep the file only if the tests actually use it..
* 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)
- 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
- MUST be below %{_tmppath}/ and MUST contain at least %{name}, %{version} and
%{release}
- should be (in descending order of preference:
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
OK
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
OK
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK (no license text in tarballs)
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
OK (one warning re: no-documentation, acceptable in this case)
* 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
* Vendor tag should not be used
OK
* Distribution tag should not be used
OK
* 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)
N/A
* specfile is legible
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
OK
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK
* BuildRequires are proper
OK
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
OK
* specfile written in American English
OK
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
N/A
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
N/A
* don't use rpath
N/A
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
N/A
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
N/A
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK (no)
* use macros appropriately and consistently
- ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
OK
* don't use %makeinstall
OK
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
OK
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
N/A
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
OK
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
N/A
* package should probably not be relocatable
N/A
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
N/A
* 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
N/A
* if it is a web app, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
N/A
* no files can be under /srv
OK
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
N/A
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
OK (see above for warning re: no documentation, waived off)
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
N/A
* package should build on i386
OK
Additional notes:
1. Consider adding descriptions to patches, if possible
2. There are significant test failures during build.. is this expected?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list