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-discovery https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225927 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-27 11:59 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) X license text included in package and marked with %doc - should the README.txt, RELEASE-NOTES.txt be marked as %doc as well? * 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-discovery non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java - this is OK * changelog are 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) * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement * 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 this when this can be built in mock * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs will do this when this can be built in mock SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock It doesn't build in mock currently: javadoc: [mkdir] Created dir: /builddir/build/BUILD/commons-discovery-0.4-src/dist [mkdir] Created dir: /builddir/build/BUILD/commons-discovery-0.4-src/dist/docs [mkdir] Created dir: /builddir/build/BUILD/commons-discovery-0.4-src/dist/docs/api [javadoc] Generating Javadoc [javadoc] Javadoc execution [javadoc] Unknown option: - [javadoc] Parsing /builddir/build/BUILD/commons-discovery-0.4-src/src/java/org/apache/commons/discovery/ResourceNameIterator.java .... [javadoc] 1 error. and when copying the files over, it fails with: + mkdir -p /var/tmp/jakarta-commons-discovery-0.4-2jpp.1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-discovery-0.4 + cp -pr 'dist/docs/api/*' /var/tmp/jakarta-commons-discovery-0.4-2jpp.1.fc7-root-mockbuild/usr/share/javadoc/jakarta-commons-discovery-0.4 cp: cannot stat `dist/docs/api/*': No such file or directory error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1025 (%install) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.1025 (%install) -- 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