[Bug 246138] Review Request: eclipse-QuickREx - QuickREx is a regular-expression test Eclipse Plug-In
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jul 11 18:42:23 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: eclipse-QuickREx - QuickREx is a regular-expression test Eclipse Plug-In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246138
overholt at redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |overholt at redhat.com
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com 2007-07-11 14:42 EST -------
Hi Alphonse,
I've finished the review. Lines prefixed with a '?' are where I have a
question. Those beginning with a '*' are fine and those marked with an
'X' indicate they must be fixed. The 'MUST' and 'SHOULD' headers just
reflect the sections here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines?action=show&redirect=PackageReviewGuidelines
MUST:
? package is named appropriately
- can we get confirmation from upstream about the capitalization issue?
I just don't want to go against their wishes. Otherwise, it's fine.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible
* specfile name matches %{name}
X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
- while I can't verify the md5sum of your tarball, I don't get any
differences on a diff of the exploded tarball so I think we're fine.
The instructions are also clear.
- my only concern is the build.properties and feature.xml files -- did
upstream author these or did you? can they not be included upstream?
I thought package-build worked fine with packages that didn't have
features - does it not? I guess I just want to know what the purpose
of these files is and whether or not they will go upstream at some
point :) .
* no typos in the summary or description
* buildroot fine, although this is now the most recommended value:
%(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX)
* %{?dist} used properly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/eclipse-quickrex-3.5.0-2.fc7.src.rpm
eclipse-quickrex.src:145: W: strange-permission fetch-quickrex.sh 0764
Can we make it 0755 or something?
X changelog fine except for extra space in first line:
* Thu Jul 5 2007 Alphonse Van Assche <alcapcom at gmail.com> 3.5.0-2
^
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
- lines that are > 80 are necessary IMO
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* no static libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package necessary
X macros used appropriately and consistently
- %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -- pick one :)
* no %makeinstall
* install section begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* no locale data
X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* Requires(pre,post) split into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code and documentation
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
* final provides and requires of the binary RPMs fine
$ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/i386/eclipse-quickrex-3.5.0-2.fc7.i386.rpm
QuickREx.jar.so
eclipse-QuickREx = 3.5.0-2.fc7
eclipse-quickrex = 3.5.0-2.fc7
$ rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/i386/eclipse-quickrex-3.5.0-2.fc7.i386.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
eclipse-platform >= 3.2.1
jakarta-oro
java-gcj-compat
java-gcj-compat
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libdl.so.2
libgcc_s.so.1
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
libgcj_bc.so.1
libm.so.6
libpthread.so.0
librt.so.1
libz.so.1
regexp
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
* rpmlint output when run on the binary RPMs
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/eclipse-quickrex-3.5.0-2.fc7.i386.rpm
eclipse-quickrex.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/de.babe.eclipse.plugins.QuickREx_3.5.0/lib/jakarta-regexp-1.4.jar
/usr/share/java/regexp.jar
eclipse-quickrex.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/de.babe.eclipse.plugins.QuickREx_3.5.0/lib/jakarta-regexp-1.4.jar
/usr/share/java/regexp.jar
eclipse-quickrex.i386: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/de.babe.eclipse.plugins.QuickREx_3.5.0/lib/jakarta-oro-2.0.8.jar
/usr/share/java/jakarta-oro-2.0.8.jar
eclipse-quickrex.i386: W: symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/eclipse/plugins/de.babe.eclipse.plugins.QuickREx_3.5.0/lib/jakarta-oro-2.0.8.jar
/usr/share/java/jakarta-oro-2.0.8.jar
- I think these are fine and I've never been told otherwise :).
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
? package should build in mock
- I didn't try but I don't anticipate any problems. Alphonse, can you
try this?
* package functions as expected (as far as I can tell)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list