[Bug 227050] Review Request: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser

[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: dtdparser-1.21-3jpp - A Java DTD Parser


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227050


vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx changed:

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




------- Additional Comments From vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx  2007-02-12 17:26 EST -------
X suggests the subsection needs attention
+ is a positive comment
. is a specific comment about a problem

MUST:
X * package is named appropriately
   . 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with 
     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage
 - match upstream tarball or project name
   + MD5SUMs match
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
   + Consistent with JPackage

 - 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
   + N/A
 - 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
   + N/A

* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
 - OSI-approved
   + LGPL OK.

 - 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

* license field matches the actual license.
  + OK

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

* specfile name matches %{name}
  + OK

* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
  + No patches, MD5 OK

 - 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)

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

* 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 rpms gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
W: dtdparser 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".

 E: dtdparser tag-not-utf8 %changelog
The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8.
. use iconv to convert to UTF8

E: dtdparser non-utf8-spec-file dtdparser.spec
The character encoding of the spec file is not UTF-8.  Convert it for
example using iconv(1).
. use iconv to convert to UTF8

W: dtdparser mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 36)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.
. Replace the tabs with spaces (:set tabexpand :%retab in vim)

W: dtdparser 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".

E: dtdparser tag-not-utf8 %changelog
The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8.
. use iconv to convert to UTF8

W: dtdparser-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".
+ All group warnings can be ignored.

E: dtdparser-javadoc tag-not-utf8 %changelog
The character encoding of the value of this tag is not UTF-8.
. use iconv to convert to UTF8

E: dtdparser-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/dtdparser-1.21/package-list
 + I checked the build root on a local build and this seems to be created by
   the javadoc task in ant. This can probably be ignored?

* 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 and 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
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
  + Seems OK, built on mock
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
  + OK
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
  + OK
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
  . minor fixes needed

* specfile written in American English
  + OK
X make a -doc sub-package if necessary
  Standardize the javadoc package handling around
  https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html
 - 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
  + The above dont apply

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

* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
  + RPM_BUILD_ROOT seems to be used consistently

* don't use %makeinstall
  + N/A

* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
 + N/A

* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
  + OK

* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
  + None used yet

* package should probably not be relocatable
  + Non relocatable

* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
  + OK
X* package should own all directories and files
 + Use jpackage-utils in Requires(x), Requires since installing to
%{_javadir}/%{_javadocdir} 
* there should be no %files duplicates
  + OK
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
  + OK
* %clean should be present
  + OK
X* %doc files should not affect runtime
  . javadoc should use %doc for its files
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
  + Not a webapp
X* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPM
rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/dtdparser-*
dtdparser = 0:1.21-3jpp
dtdparser-javadoc = 0:1.21-3jpp
rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/noarch/dtdparser-*
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
 . Requires needs jpakage-utils as mentioned earlier
 . Should have a requires on java?

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
  + OK
* package should build on i386
  + Builds on 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 the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
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]