Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-pool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225935 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-26 16:51 EST ------- Please fix items marked by X: 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} * 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 * 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) * license text included in package and marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - W: jakarta-commons-pool non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java - this is OK * changelog 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 - should the NOTICE.txt and RELEASE-NOTES.txt be marked as %doc? - why did epoch get back to 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 $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-pool-1.3-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm commons-pool = 0:1.3-9jpp.1.fc7 jakarta-commons-pool-1.3.jar.so()(64bit) jakarta-commons-pool = 0:1.3-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-pool-1.3-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-pool-debuginfo-1.3-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm jakarta-commons-pool-1.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) jakarta-commons-pool-tomcat5-1.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) jakarta-commons-pool-debuginfo = 0:1.3-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-pool-debuginfo-1.3-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-pool-javadoc-1.3-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm jakarta-commons-pool-javadoc = 0:1.3-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-pool-javadoc-1.3-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm java-javadoc rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-pool-tomcat5-1.3-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm jakarta-commons-pool-tomcat5-1.3.jar.so()(64bit) jakarta-commons-pool-tomcat5 = 0:1.3-9jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-pool-tomcat5-1.3-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-pool-*rpm W: jakarta-commons-pool non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jakarta-commons-pool non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jakarta-commons-pool-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: jakarta-commons-pool-tomcat5 non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jakarta-commons-pool-tomcat5 no-documentation These are OK. SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock -- 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