[Bug 227500] Review Request: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library

Thu Jun 14 19:03:21 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: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227500

------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com  2007-06-14 15:03 EST -------
===========================
Re-starting Review Process:
===========================

***** Items marked with an X need to be fixed. *****

OK - package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
 - specfile should be %{name}.spec
 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
   something)
 - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
 - 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 - license field matches the actual license.

OK - license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common

OK - specfile name matches %{name}

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

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

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

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

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

OK - 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 - 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 - post and postun javadoc should not exist

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

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
   X - coreutils  --> This BR can be deleted.
   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

X - description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
  --> Description is very vague for javadoc.  If this can be expanded, that
would be great.  If not, I don't think it's a big deal.

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?

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

OK - %clean should be present

OK - %doc files should not affect runtime

OK - add gcj support if %BuildArch nnoarch

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

Ok - rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
   --> warning can be ignored.		

X - run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
   --> rpmlint svnkit-1.1.2-1.fc7.i386.rpm
       Only this warning needs to be fixed:  svnkit
wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/svnkit-1.1.2/README.txt, the
others I think can be ignored.
   --> rpmlint svnkit-debuginfo-1.1.2-1.fc7.i386.rpm
       This warning can be ignored.
   --> rpmlint svnkit-javadoc-1.1.2-1.fc7.i386.rpm
       There are a bunch of svnkit-javadoc wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
warnings that I think need to be fixed.

OK - license text included in package and marked with %doc
    --> license text is not included in this package.

X 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
   --> I'm getting different md5sums.  Could you kindly just double check this
as well.

OK - package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
   --> See note above.

OK - package should build on i386

OK - package should build on 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.