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: slf4j - Simple Logging Facade for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=235113 asimon@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |asimon@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From asimon@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-04 05:58 EST ------- slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK - package is named appropriately ?? * match upstream tarball or project name ?? * try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency ---> I am not sure about those 2 points as the latest available version is 1.3.0 (see http://www.slf4j.org/dist/) NO * specfile should be %{name}.spec ---> it is named: slf4j.spec but it should be slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - 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 OK - is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? ?? * OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware ?? * is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK - license field matches the actual license. OK - license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common ?? * 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 OK - skim the summary and description for typos, etc. NO * correct buildroot should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --> it is /slf4j-1.0-rc5/lib/ NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc --> included but not marked with %doc: OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) NO * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) --> The rpm contains unwanted directories and files: /.svn/, /test/, /TODO.txt, /src/.svn etc with .svn directories NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there --> Cannot install source packages. No packages were given for installation. OK - 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. OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) NO * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement --> Those fields must be changed Name: %{name} Version: %{version} Release: %{release}.1%{?dist} ?? * 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 OK - summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK - description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK - make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK - specfile written in American English OK - make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA - packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK - don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * 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 OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * 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 NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates ?? * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present ?? * %clean should be present NA * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * 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 ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc --> included but not marked 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