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: bcel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225610 ------- Additional Comments From mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-10 13:34 EST ------- 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 OK * 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 OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK * 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. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output rpmlint bcel-5.1-10jpp.1.src.rpm W: bcel non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java OK, the group warning can be ignored * changelog should be in proper format: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * Distribution tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here OK - 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 description lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary OK, contains a manual and javadoc subpackages * 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 OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} OK * 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 X one cp missing -p in %build (line 186) * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * 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 OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %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 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs rpmlint bcel-5.1-10jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: bcel non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java OK, group warnings can be ignored rpmlint bcel-demo-5.1-10jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: bcel-demo non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: bcel-demo no-documentation X should there be any documentation for this? rpmlint bcel-javadoc-5.1-10jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: bcel-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation OK rpmlint bcel-manual-5.1-10jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: bcel-manual non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java OK rpmlint bcel-debuginfo-5.1-10jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm OK SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock OK -- 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