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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 00:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > X suggests the subsection needs attention > + is a positive comment > . is a specific comment about a problem > > X * package is named appropriately > - match upstream tarball or project name > + Tarball matches upstream > - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for > consistency > + Looks OK to me > - specfile should be %{name}.spec > + spec file matches %{name} > - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or > something) > + Correct. > - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > . The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > 0:1.0-0.b2.1jpp should comply to Fedora + JPackage exception guidelines: > 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1%{?dist} Fixed. > - 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 > + Does not apply. > > * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? > - OSI-approved > - not a kernel module > - not shareware > - is it covered by patents? > - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator > - no binary firmware > + ASL is acceptable license, none of the other fields apply > > * license field matches the actual license. > + ASL 1.1 > * license is open source-compatible. > - use acronyms for licences where common > + Apache Software License is fine > * specfile name matches %{name} > + Correct. > * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > - 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 > + MD5 sum matches > > * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. > + Looks OK. > > X correct buildroot > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > This needs to be fixed > > X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % > locations) > . Refer to the naming comment earlier > > * license text included in package and marked with %doc > + Correct. > > * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? > useless?) > + Seems OK. > > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > + Seems OK. > > X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > W: ant-contrib 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". > > + This can be ignored since the group seems irrelevant > > W: ant-contrib class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/ant-contrib-1.0.jar > The META-INF/MANIFEST file in the jar contains a hardcoded Class-Path. > These entries do not work with older Java versions and even if they do work, > they are inflexible and usually cause nasty surprises. > Fixed in the patch file to comment out adding the jar file into the manifest file. > W: ant-contrib-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: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > . Please apply the following: > https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html > Fixed, please let me know if I've done it correctly. :) > W: ant-contrib-manual 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: ant-contrib-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/ant-contrib-1.0/tasks/foreach.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. > . Use sed to remove the offending characters in the %prep > Fixed in %prep > W: ant-contrib-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/ant-contrib-1.0/tasks/for.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. > Fixed in %prep > W: ant-contrib 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: ant-contrib mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 50) > The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a > cosmetic annoyance. Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both. > Fixed > * 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. > + Seems OK. > > * Packager tag should not be used > + Seems OK. > > X * Vendor and disribution tag should not be used > + Remove the above 2 tags > Done > * use License and not Copyright > + Correct. > > * Summary tag should not end in a period > + Correct. > * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) > + N/A > > X specfile is legible > - this is largely subjective; use your judgement > . Seems OK overall, please try and incorporate the suggestions for javadoc > handling mentioned earlier so the %post* sections for it can be removed. Done. > > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > > * BuildRequires are proper > - builds in mock will flush out problems here > + Local build on minimal machine works, will check on mock again when resubmitted > - 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 > + Correct > * description expands upon summary (don't include installation > instructions) > + Correct > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > . The gcj_support line is massive (>80 chars) , try and reformat if possible Fixed. > * specfile written in American English > * make a -doc sub-package if necessary > - 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? > * use macros appropriately and consistently > - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS > + Correct > * don't use %makeinstall > * locale data handling correct (find_lang) > - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the > end of %install > * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps > * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines > + Correct > * package should probably not be relocatable > + It is not relocatable > * package contains code > - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent > - in general, there should be no offensive content > X * package should own all directories and files > + Since package is installing to %{_javadir} should add Requires(pre), > Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils but if the javadoc handling is fixed then a > simple requires is good enough > Require: jpackage-utils added > * there should be no %files duplicates > + Correct. > * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present > + Correct. > > * %clean should be present > + Correct. > > * %doc files should not affect runtime > + Seems OK. > > * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www > + Not a web app > X * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > . Add requires on java and jpackage-utils (Requires(x) if appropriate, see above) Added Requires for both java and jpackage-utils [pcheung@toque ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/SRPMS/ant-contr-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.src.rpm ant ant-junit jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 junit = 0:3.8.2 bcel = 0:5.1 java-gcj-compat-devel rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 [pcheung@toque ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm ant-contrib-1.0.jar.so ant-contrib = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1 [pcheung@toque ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh ant = 0:1.6.5 bcel = 0:5.1 java java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils junit = 0:3.8.2 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) libgcj.so.7 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@toque ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-javadoc-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm ant-contrib-javadoc = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1 [pcheung@toque ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-javadoc-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@toque ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-manual-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm ant-contrib-manual = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1 [pcheung@toque ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-manual-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@toque ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm ant-contrib-1.0.jar.so.debug ant-contrib-debuginfo = 1:1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1 [pcheung@toque ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/topdir/RPMS/i386/ant-contrib-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.b2.1jpp.1.i386.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 > X * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > . Above rpmlint output is for binary + srpm This is the current rpmlint output: W: ant-contrib non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: ant-contrib non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: ant-contrib-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: ant-contrib-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation > SHOULD: > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > + Correct. > * package should build on i386 > + Builds locally. > > * package should build in mock > Built in mock, and added ant, ant-junit as BRs > i can't find how to show what I've uploaded to pcheung.108.redhat.com, will let you know the location when i found out how. -- 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