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: dom4j-1.6.1-2jpp - DOM4J https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227049 tbento@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento@xxxxxxxxxx |dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tbento@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 14:44 EST ------- Note: When I did a rpmbuild, I had to disable the tests because one of them was failing. This needs to be fixed. MUST: X package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - 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 --> Should be 0:1.6.1-2jpp.1%{?dist}. * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved --> Okay. * license field matches the actual license. --> Okay. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common --> Okay. * specfile name matches %{name} --> Okay. * 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 --> Doesn't apply. * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. --> Okay. 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) --> See above. X license text included in package and marked with %doc --> Currently, this is not the case. Under %files, we have "%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt". Should we change that to "%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE.txt" or simply "%doc LICENSE.txt"?? * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) --> Okay. * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) --> Okay. X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there --> W: dom4j non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: dom4j strange-permission dom4j_rundemo.sh 0755 W: dom4j mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 85) * 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. --> Okay. * Packager tag should not be used --> Okay. X Vendor tag should not be used --> Remove %Vendor. X Distribution tag should not be used --> Remove %Distribution. * use License and not Copyright --> Okay. * Summary tag should not end in a period --> Okay. * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) --> Okay. * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement --> Okay. X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 --> I made a note of this at the top. * BuildRequires are proper - 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 --> Okay. X summary should be a short and concise description of the package --> %Summary should not be the name of the package. * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) --> Okay. X make sure lines are <= 80 characters --> Some lines have more than 80 characters on them. * specfile written in American English --> Okay. * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b --> Okay. * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible --> Okay. * don't use rpath --> Okay. * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) --> Okay. * GUI apps should contain .desktop files --> Okay. * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? --> Okay. * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS --> Okay. * don't use %makeinstall --> Okay. * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install --> Okay. * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps --> Okay. * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines --> Okay. * package should probably not be relocatable --> Okay. * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content --> Okay. * package should own all directories and files --> Okay. * there should be no %files duplicates --> Okay. * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present --> Okay. * %clean should be present --> Okay. X %doc files should not affect runtime --> Since I was not able to do a rpmbuild, I was not able to check this. * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www --> Okay. X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs --> Since I was not able to do a rpmbuild, I was not able to check this. X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs --> Since I was not able to do a rpmbuild, I was not able to check this. SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc --> See above. X package should build on i386 --> See above. X package should build in mock --> This needs to be done. One other thing to be fixed: remove "define section free". -- 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