[Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 pcheung at redhat.com  2007-02-09 15:28 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> MUST:
> X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output
> 
> W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> 
> Perhaps:  System Environment/Libraries ?
> 

It seems acceptable to use Development/Libraries/Java as the Group field, please
see:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html

> * 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)
> 

Fixed.

> . do we need section free?
> 

Got rid of it.

> * 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?
> 

Yes, please see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366#c5

> X source files match upstream
> . I can't find the tarball.  Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the
> tar.gz.
> 

Fixed Source0 URL.

> * 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})?
> 

Yes, please see:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00076.html

> * 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?

Please see the second part of the following comment:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c5

> * 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

I've built avalon-framework (which has avalon-logkit as a BuildRequire) and it
builds fine.

> 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

I did a scratch build in brew with the new spec file and it builds fine.

-- 
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.