[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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: icu4j


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592


vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx           |mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx  2007-02-12 16:18 EST -------
X suggests the subsection needs attention
+ is a positive comment
. is a specific comment about a problem

MUST:
X * 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
   . 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with 
     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage
 - 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
   X licence OSI approved
 - not a kernel module
 - not shareware
 - is it covered by patents?
 - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
 - no binary firmware
   + None of these apply

X * license field matches the actual license.
   + The license according
     http://www-306.ibm.com/software/globalization/icu/license.jsp is X License

* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
   + Yes but needs to be confirmed to be the correct license, see above.
* specfile name matches %{name}
  + OK.
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
  + OK. The patches use windows style CRLF, please use sed to fix.
 - 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
  + N/A
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
  + OK.

X correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
   . Use the buildroot specified above

X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
  . Use the new naming convention mentioned above

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
  + OK.

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?)
  + N/A

* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
  + OK
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm and rpm gives no output
W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid.  Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".

W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/icu4j-3.4.5/license.html
This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
correctly in some circumstances.

W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/icu4j-3.4.5/APIChangeReport.html
This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
correctly in some circumstances.

W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/icu4j-3.4.5/readme.html
This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
correctly in some circumstances.

W: icu4j-eclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development
Environments (IDE)
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid.  Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".

W: icu4j-eclipse no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc).
You have to include documentation files.
 . There should probably be an EPL file in the eclipse subpackage that needs
   to be added
W: icu4j-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid.  Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".

W: icu4j-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
+ If you get rid of the script driven javadoc handling, you wont have to deal
with this, see below

W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid.  Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".

W: icu4j mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 55)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
 + Groups can be ignored
 . Fix the end line encoding
 . Add EPL documentation to eclipse package

* changelog should be in one of these formats:
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx>
  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.
  + OK

* Packager tag should not be used
  + OK

* Vendor/Distribution tag should not be used
  + OK

* use License and not Copyright 
  + OK

* Summary tag should not end in a period
  + OK

* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
  + N/A

* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
   + OK

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
   + ?Builds OK locally

* BuildRequires are proper
  + Builds in mock
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
   bash
   bzip2
   coreutils
   cpio
   diffutils
   fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
   gcc
   gcc-c++
   gzip
   make
   patch
   perl
   redhat-rpm-config
   rpm-build
   sed
   tar
   unzip
   which

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

* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
  + OK
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
  + Everything except the gc_support incantation seems OK, if possible
reformat

* specfile written in American English
  + OK

* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
  + OK, the javadoc subpackages are equivalent to this

* - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
 + None of the above apply

* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
  + N/A

X use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
 - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} used interchangably

* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install

X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
  Some cp commands not using -p option, suggest adding them if possible

* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
  + N/A

* package should probably not be relocatable
  + Not relocatable

* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 + OK
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
 + To the best of my knowledge no ofensive content :)

X package should own all directories and files
  . /usr/lib/eclipse should be owned by libswt3-gtk2 in the latest update to it,
add a require for it
  . jpackage-utils is needed for the javadoc and base package since it needs
/usr/share/java{,doc}.
    Please take a look at
https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html and
    modify the javadoc handling appropriately. If you use the above javadoc
handling then you can 
    limit to Requires: jpackage-utils in both javadoc and main packages, o/w you
need Requires(post)
    and Requires on jpackage-utils as well as Requires(post) on rm and ln in
javadoc package and a 
    requires on the main package for jpackage-utils
 
* there should be no %files duplicates
  + OK

* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
  + OK

* %clean should be present
  + OK

* %doc files should not affect runtime
  + OK

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

X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
  + Builds in mock fine
  . Requires need to be fixed, check "package should own all directories and files"

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
  + OK
* package should build on i386
  + Builds in mock
* package should build in mock
  + OK



-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]