[Bug 227027] Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Feb 12 17:33:46 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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027
vivekl at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|vivekl at redhat.com |pcheung at redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review-
------- Additional Comments From vivekl at redhat.com 2007-02-12 12:33 EST -------
X suggests the subsection needs attention
+ is a positive comment
. is a specific comment about a problem
X * package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
+ Tarball matches upstream
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
+ Looks OK to me
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
+ spec file matches %{name}
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
+ Correct.
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
. The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
0:1.0-0.b2.1jpp should comply to Fedora + JPackage exception guidelines:
1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1%{?dist}
- 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
+ Does not apply.
* 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
+ ASL is acceptable license, none of the other fields apply
* license field matches the actual license.
+ ASL 1.1
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
+ Apache Software License is fine
* specfile name matches %{name}
+ Correct.
* 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
+ MD5 sum matches
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
+ Looks OK.
X correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
This needs to be fixed
X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
. Refer to the naming comment earlier
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
+ Correct.
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
+ Seems OK.
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
+ Seems OK.
X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
W: ant-contrib non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".
+ This can be ignored since the group seems irrelevant
W: ant-contrib class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/ant-contrib-1.0.jar
The META-INF/MANIFEST file in the jar contains a hardcoded Class-Path.
These entries do not work with older Java versions and even if they do work,
they are inflexible and usually cause nasty surprises.
W: ant-contrib-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".
W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
. Please apply the following:
https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html
W: ant-contrib-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".
W: ant-contrib-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/ant-contrib-1.0/tasks/foreach.html
This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
correctly in some circumstances.
. Use sed to remove the offending characters in the %prep
W: ant-contrib-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/ant-contrib-1.0/tasks/for.html
This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
correctly in some circumstances.
W: ant-contrib non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".
W: ant-contrib mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 50)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
* 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.
+ Seems OK.
* Packager tag should not be used
+ Seems OK.
X * Vendor and disribution tag should not be used
+ Remove the above 2 tags
* use License and not Copyright
+ Correct.
* Summary tag should not end in a period
+ Correct.
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
+ N/A
X specfile is legible
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
. Seems OK overall, please try and incorporate the suggestions for javadoc
handling mentioned earlier so the %post* sections for it can be removed.
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
- builds in mock will flush out problems here
+ Local build on minimal machine works, will check on mock again when resubmitted
- 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
+ Correct
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
+ Correct
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
. The gcj_support line is massive (>80 chars) , try and reformat if possible
* 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
+ Correct
* 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
+ Correct
* package should probably not be relocatable
+ It is not relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
X * package should own all directories and files
+ Since package is installing to %{_javadir} should add Requires(pre),
Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils but if the javadoc handling is fixed then a
simple requires is good enough
* there should be no %files duplicates
+ Correct.
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
+ Correct.
* %clean should be present
+ Correct.
* %doc files should not affect runtime
+ Seems OK.
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
+ Not a web app
X * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
. Add requires on java and jpackage-utils (Requires(x) if appropriate, see above)
X * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
. Above rpmlint output is for binary + srpm
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
+ Correct.
* package should build on i386
+ Builds locally.
* 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