[Bug 227066] Review Request: jarjar-0.6-2jpp - Jar Jar Links

Tue Feb 13 21:01:06 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: jarjar-0.6-2jpp - Jar Jar Links

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227066

dbhole at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com           |nsantos at redhat.com
                 CC|                            |dbhole at redhat.com

------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com  2007-02-13 16:00 EST -------
Packages marked with X need fixing.

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
   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?
 - OSI-approved
   GPL - OK

 - not a kernel module
   It isn't

 - not shareware
   It isn't

 - is it covered by patents?
   No

 - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
   It isn't

 - no binary firmware
   No

* license field matches the actual license.
  Yes

* license is open source-compatible.
  Yes

 - use acronyms for licences where common
  Used

* specfile name matches %{name}
  Yes

* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
  No patches

X - 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
    Needs instructions

X * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
    Can the summary be made more descriptive?

X * correct buildroot
    - should be:
    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
    Needs fixing.

X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
    locations)
    %{?dist} should be used

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
  No license in package. OK.

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
  OK

* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
  OK

X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
  - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
  W: jarjar non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
  W: jarjar-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
  W: jarjar-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
  W: jarjar-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
  W: jarjar non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML

* 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

X * Distributor tag should not be used
    Fix

X * Vendor tag should not be used
    Fix

* use License and not Copyright 
  OK

X * Summary tag should not end in a period
    OK (Summary needs changing, so please be sure to follow this then)

* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
  OK

* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
  OK 

X * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
    OK with help from jpackage. Please build in mock when dependencies are done.

X * BuildRequires are proper
  - builds in mock will flush out problems here
  - 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
   Build in mock to confirm.

X  * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
   Summary needs update. See above.  

* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
  OK

* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
 Line 8 in %install is too long.

* specfile written in American English

* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
  NA

* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
  NA

* don't use rpath
  NA

* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
  NA

* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
  NA

* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
  No

* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
  OK

* don't use %makeinstall
  OK

* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
  OK

* 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
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
 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
  OK

* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
  OK

* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
  OK

* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
  OK

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
  No. Package tarball does not have it.

X * package should build on i386
    No

X * package should build in mock
    No

$ rpm -qp --provides ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm 
jarjar = 0:0.6-2jpp

$ rpm -qp --requires ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm 
asm2  
gnu.regexp  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

$ rpm -qp --provides ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-javadoc-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm 
jarjar-javadoc = 0:0.6-2jpp

$ rpm -qp --requires ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-javadoc-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm 
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

-- 
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.