[Bug 227047] Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework

[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: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047


dbhole at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|dbhole at redhat.com           |overholt at redhat.com




------- Additional Comments From dbhole at redhat.com  2007-02-15 20:02 EST -------
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
  OK

 - not a kernel module
  OK

 - not shareware
  OK

 - is it covered by patents?
  OK

 - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
  OK

 - no binary firmware
  OK

* license field matches the actual license.
  OK

* 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
  md5s do not match, but contents do

* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
  OK

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

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

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
  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
  Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on
this though

* 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.


* 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)
  OK

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

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
  OK

* 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

  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
  OK

* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
  OK

* don't use rpath
  OK

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

* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
  OK

* 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
  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

X * package should own all directories and files
  /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement

* 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
  OK

* package should build on i386
  OK

* 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.