[Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Feb 9 01:00:05 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: Merge Review: avalon-logkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306
------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-02-08 19:59 EST -------
MUST:
X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output
W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ?
* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
X package meets packaging guidelines.
. BuildRoot incorrect. As per this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot
it should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
. do we need section free?
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
X specfile is legible
. do we still need the crazy gcj_support line?
X source files match upstream
. I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the
tar.gz.
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on
the other arches in Fedora Core presently)
X BuildRequires are proper
. are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in Requires(post{,un})?
* no locale data so no find_lang necessary
* package is not relocatable
X package owns all directories and files
. why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the
%file section?
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
. javadoc package present
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* no desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* final provides and requires are sane
$ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm
avalon-logkit-1.2.jar.so
avalon-logkit = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7
$ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm
avalon-logkit-javadoc = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7
$ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
avalon-framework >= 0:4.1.4
java-gcj-compat
java-gcj-compat
jdbc-stdext
jms
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libdl.so.2
libgcc_s.so.1
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0)
libgcj_bc.so.1
libm.so.6
libpthread.so.0
librt.so.1
libz.so.1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
servlet
$ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm
/bin/ln
/bin/rm
/bin/rm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* package builds on i386
... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here
X package functions
. I don't know how to test this package
X package builds in mock
my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems
here as the package currently builds fine in brew
--
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