[Bug 227100] Review Request: plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp - Plexus Compiler

[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: plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp - Plexus Compiler


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227100


tbento at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|tbento at redhat.com           |dbhole at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From tbento at redhat.com  2007-03-09 13:46 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

* 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 x86i
 OK

* BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 OK 

* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
 OK

* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
 Description is vague, but I think this is OK.

X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
 Some lines have more than 80 characters.

* 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

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

X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
 W: plexus-compiler non-standard-group Development/Java - OK

X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
 W: plexus-compiler non-standard-group Development/Java - OK
 W: plexus-compiler no-documentation - OK

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
 Not applicable.

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
 Missing tar instruction:
  tar czf plexus-compiler-src.tar.gz plexus-compiler-1.5.2/

SHOULD:

* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
 Not applicable (see above).

* package should build on i386
 OK

X package should build on mock
 Should be built on mock once gcj support is added.

A couple of other things:
 - gcj support option be added.
 - "%define section free" could be removed.

-- 
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.