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=787738 --- Comment #3 from Garrett Holmstrom <gholms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-21 18:19:24 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > > - The java dep must be versioned per the java guidelines > > I don't see this in the current java guidelines, and I suspect that it would > only mislead people. Use of Fedora 17 implies JDK 7, but compiling with an > older JDK for an older distro is certainly valid. It's right here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires At this point it is probably unnecessary cruft, but right now it is still a MUST. I suggest asking the rest of the Java SIG if this is okay to drop from the guidelines. If it is then this package should be good to go; everything else looks fine. > > - You need to add post and postun deps on jpackage-utils per the java > guidelines > > Again, current java guidelines don't include this; in fact, it's forbidden: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java_review_template Bah, the rule only applies to maven 2 now. If you aren't going to add this to EPEL 6 then feel free to ignore it. Mandatory review guidelines: ok - rpmlint output (none) ok - Package meets naming guidelines ok - Spec file name matches base package name ok - License is acceptable (ASL 2.0) ok - License field in spec is correct ok - License files included in package %docs or not included in upstream source ok - License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed ok - Spec written in American English ok - Spec is legible ok - Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues Upstream MD5: 7f0029d960a140b5054a3c339259daac wss4j-src-1.5.12.zip Your MD5: 7f0029d960a140b5054a3c339259daac wss4j-src-1.5.12.zip ok - Build succeeds on at least one supported platform -- - Build succeeds on all supported platforms or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed ok - BuildRequires correct -- - Package handles locales with %find_lang -- - %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files ok - No bundled system libs -- - Relocatability is justified ok - Package owns all directories it creates ok - Package requires other packages for directories it uses but does not own ok - No duplicate files in %files unless necessary for license files ok - File permissions are sane -- - Each %files section contains %defattr on EL4 ok - Consistent use of macros ok - Sources contain only permissible code or content -- - Large documentation files go in -doc package ok - Missing %doc files do not affect runtime -- - Headers go in -devel package -- - Static libs go in -static package -- - Unversioned .so files go in -devel package -- - Devel packages require base with fully-versioned dependency ok - Package contains no .la files -- - GUI app uses desktop-file-install/desktop-file-validate for .desktop files -- - Package's files and directories don't conflict with others' or justified ok - File names are valid UTF-8 Optional review guidelines: -- - Query upstream about including license files no - Translations of description, Summary ok - Builds in mock ok - Builds on all supported platforms -- - Scriptlets are sane -- - Non-devel subpackage Requires are sane -- - .pc files go in -devel unless main package is a development tool ok - No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin -- - Man pages included for all executables -- - Package with test-suite executes it in %check section Packaging guidelines: ok - Has dist tag ok - Useful without external bits ok - Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /usr/target, /run ok - No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17 -- - Programs launched before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run -- - Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17 ok - Changelog in prescribed format ok - Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags -- - Correct BuildRoot tag on < F10/EL6 Builds will not work on EPEL 5. -- - Correct %clean section on < F13/EL6 Builds will not work on EPEL 5. ok - Requires correct, justified where necessary Lack of maven2 support will prevent builds on EPEL 6. ok - Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly ok - All relevant documentation is packaged, tagged appropriately ok - Documentation files do not have executable permissions -- - %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise -- - Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 -- - Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified ok - No static executables ok - Rpath absent or only used for internal libs -- - Config files marked with %config -- - %config files marked noreplace or justified ok - No %config files under /usr -- - Systemd units/init scripts are sane -- - Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded directory names where appropriate ok - Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed -- - %makeinstall used only when ``make install DESTDIR=...'' doesn't work -- - Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time -- - Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR or %{sourcedir} -- - %global instead of %define where appropriate -- - Package containing translations BuildRequires gettext ok - File timestamps preserved by file ops -- - Parallel make ok - Spec does not use Requires(pre,post) notation -- - User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) -- - Web app files go in /usr/share/%{name}, not /var/www -- - Conflicts are justified ok - No external kernel modules ok - No files in /srv, /opt, /usr/local ok - One project per package ok - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified -- - Packages needing dirs in /var/run or /var/lock use tmpfiles.d on >= F15 -- - Renamed packages migrate from old packages correctly -- - Programs that support IPv4 and IPv6 without functionality loss enable both Java guidelines: ok - Javadocs go in javadoc subpackage ok - Prefer split JARs over monolithic ok - JAR file names correct ok - JAR files go in %{_javadir} or %{_javadir}-$version -- - Multiple JAR files go in a %{name} subdirectory ok - Javadocs go in unversioned %{_javadocdir}/%{name} ok - javadoc subpackage is noarch on > EL5 ok - BuildRequires java-devel, jpackage-utils NO - Requires java >= $version, jpackage-utils Check with the rest of the Java SIG if the version is okay to omit. -- - Dependencies on java/java-devel >= 1.6.0 add epoch 1 -- - Package requiring maven2 Requires jpackage-utils for post and postun ok - Package requiring maven contains correct maven-specific code in spec -- - Wrapper script in %{_bindir} -- - GCJ AOT bits follow GCJ guidelines ok - No devel package ok - pom.xml files, if any, installed with %add_maven_depmap -- - JNI shared objects, JARs that require them go in %{_libdir}/%{name} -- - Calls to System.loadLibrary replaced w/ System.load w/ full .so path ok - Bundled JAR files not included or used for build ok - No Javadoc %post/%ghost ok - No class-path elements in JAR manifests -- 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