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: byaccj-1.11-2jpp - Parser Generator with Java Extension https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227042 tbento@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG AssignedTo|tbento@xxxxxxxxxx |jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tbento@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-15 18:01 EST ------- 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 --> Changed %Release to 2jpp.1%{?dist}. * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved --> Okay. X license field matches the actual license. --> The %License tag is currently GPL. However, on their website (http://byaccj.sourceforge.net/) it states that it has no license. The jpackage website (http://www.jpackage.org/browser/rpm.php?jppversion=1.7&id=27) states that it is GPL, but on the SourceForge website (http://sourceforge.net/projects/byaccj), it states that it is Public Domain. There is no LICENSE.txt file (or anything along those lines) included in the package, so I presume its license is Public Doman, so I changed it to Public Domain. What do you think??? * 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 --> Okay. * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. --> Okay. X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --> Fixed. * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) --> Okay. X license text included in package and marked with %doc --> License text is not included (not sure what the license is - see above). Does the license text need to be included? * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * 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: byaccj non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java (This warning can 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. --> Okay. * Packager tag should not be used --> Okay. X Vendor tag should not be used --> Removed. X Distribution tag should not be used --> Removed. * 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. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 --> Okay. X BuildRequires are proper i - 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 --> gcc and make were both listed as BuildRequires, so I removed them. * summary should be a short and concise description of the package --> Okay. X description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) --> The description mentions a new flag "-J". I left it, but should that sentence be left in??? * make sure lines are <= 80 characters --> Okay. * 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. * %doc files should not affect runtime --> Okay. * 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 --> rpm -qp --provides /home/tbento/reviews/byaccj/RPMS/i386/* : byaccj = 0:1.11-2jpp.1 byaccj-debuginfo = 0:1.11-2jpp.1 --> rpm -qp --provides /home/tbento/reviews/byaccj/RPMS/i386/*: byaccj = 0:1.11-2jpp.1 byaccj-debuginfo = 0:1.11-2jpp.1 X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs --> rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/byaccj-1.11-2jpp.1.i386.rpm: W: byaccj non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java --> This warning can be ignored. W: byaccj wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/byaccj-1.11/tf.y --> This has been fixed. SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc --> See above. * package should build on i386 --> Okay. I also removed the "%define section free". The spec file and source rpm can be found at the following URL: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/byaccj/ Thanks -- 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