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: maven-shared-1.0-4jpp - Maven Shared Components https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227083 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-06 10:33 EST ------- Please fix items marked by X, thanks! MUST: * 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 * 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 * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - tar command for Source0 creates a src tar ball named file-management.tar.gz, but Source0 is maven-shared-file-management-1.0.tar.gz - Source 4 is maven-plugin-testing-harness-1.0-beta-1.tar.gz, but tar command creates maven-plugin-testing-harness.tar.gz - md5sum mismatch, but diff -r shows contents are the same. * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) X license text included in package and marked with %doc - no license marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output W: maven-shared mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51) * changelog format is ok * Packager tag should not be used * Vendor tag should not be used * Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - URL is for Apache Geronimo - should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0 - the %define gcj_support .... doesn't seems like it can be split up into multiple lines - for the %post and %postun, the if condition should probably be before the the %post[,un] so that there won't be an empty %post[,un] if gcj_support is 0.* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * 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 * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * 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 * 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 * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs will do these when issues are fixed * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc no license text marked with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock will try to build after issues are fixed, and BR's are built. -- 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