Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=727670 Jon VanAlten <jon.vanalten@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jon.vanalten@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Jon VanAlten <jon.vanalten@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-09-26 14:49:48 EDT --- Hi, I'm just learning fedora package review stuff. Please consider this an *informal* review. I based this on a couple reviews I found for other packages. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: simplevalidation.spec:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 1) Not an actual problem, but would be nice to be consistent. simplevalidation.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://kenai.com/project /simplevalidation/downloads/download/validation-src.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [x] Buildroot definition is not present [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2 or CDDL. Thank you for using the correct separator for this dual-licensed software. Please attempt to contact upstream to have separate licence file included. [-] If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 1ecbbc482003d92263c507668b5d04ec MD5SUM upstream package: 1ecbbc482003d92263c507668b5d04ec [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [!] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) Some use of $foo (variables) and some %{bar} macros, please pick one. (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Using_.25.7Bbuildroot.7D_and_.25.7Boptflags.7D_vs_.24RPM_BUILD_ROOT_and_.24RPM_OPT_FLAGS) (NB: It's not entirely clear to me whether this is meant to apply to all use of variables/macros, or *just* the specific variables noted on the wiki. If it is just aimed at those specific variables, feel free to ignore this) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [x] Package uses %global not %define [x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [-] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly) === Other suggestions === [x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [!] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) This is pure java, no native code? Unless there is reason to produce arch-specific packages, please specify noarch. [x] Latest version is packaged. Tested on: fedora-15-x86_64 === Final Notes, AKA Questions from the Noob === I notice in the files section, you use a wildcard even though there is only the single jarfile belonging to the package. I can't find any guidelines about this, but it seems to me that what the specfile is doing here would be more clear if the file was specified, much as it is in the install section. Is there some guideline I have missed? One more nit: Extra newline amidst BuildRequires lines should probably be removed. Hope this is helpful! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review