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: jakarta-commons-io-1.2-2jpp - Commons IO Package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227064 vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-12 19:06 EST ------- X suggests the subsection needs attention + is a positive comment . is a specific comment about a problem MUST: X* package is named appropriately . 0:1.2-2jpp -> 0:1.2-2jpp.1%{?dist} . http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage - match upstream tarball or project name + The project is commons-io upstream (Apache) but since JPackage is consistent with the jakarta-commons packages, this is fine IMO - 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 + N/A * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved + ASL - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware + None of the above 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) + 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 * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) + OK X* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) - Fix this based on the link 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 rpms gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there W: jakarta-commons-io 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: jakarta-commons-io-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". XW: jakarta-commons-io-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jakarta-commons-io-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm . You can get rid of these warnings by implementing javadoc handling as described in the following URL (since no %post/%postun is required): https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html W: jakarta-commons-io 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". . Group warnings can be ignored in all cases. W: jakarta-commons-io mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 52) The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. . Use :set expandtab and :%retab in vim to get rid of these * 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 X* Vendor and distribution tag should not be used . Please remove these * 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) + OK X * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement . Minor fixes in formatting if possible (<80 character lines etc.) * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 + Builds on mock * BuildRequires are proper + Builds on mock * 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 * specfile written in American English + OK X* make a -doc sub-package if necessary . Javadoc package should be changed to implement the new standard from JPackage, see link mentioned above . Add Requires(x) on /bin/rm, /bin/ln etc. as appropriate - 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 * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? + None of these apply * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS + OK * 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 + None of these apply X* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps . Use cp -p and install -p where possible * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines + N/A * 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 . Need %{_javadocdir}/%{_javadir} which are owned by jpackage-utils Should add Requires(pre/postun) on jpackage-utils in javadoc package and main package * 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 webapp * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs + OK, as long as the suggestions about naming and requires etc. are implemented rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/noarch/jakarta-commons-io-* jakarta-commons-io = 0:1.2-2jpp jakarta-commons-io-javadoc = 0:1.2-2jpp rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/noarch/jakarta-commons-io-* rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc + OK * package should build on i386 + OK, builds 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