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: svnkit - Pure Java Subversion client library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227500 ------- Additional Comments From tbento@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-14 15:03 EST ------- =========================== Re-starting Review Process: =========================== ***** Items marked with an X need to be fixed. ***** OK - 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 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 - 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 - keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK - packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) 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 - Distribution tag should not be used OK - use License and not Copyright OK - Summary tag should not end in a period OK - post and postun javadoc should not exist OK - if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK - specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK - package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X - BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 X - coreutils --> This BR can be deleted. 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 X - description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) --> Description is very vague for javadoc. If this can be expanded, that would be great. If not, I don't think it's a big deal. 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 OK - packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK - don't use rpath OK - config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) OK - GUI apps should contain .desktop files Ok - should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK - don't use %makeinstall OK - locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK - consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK - 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 OK - file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK - if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK - %clean should be present OK - %doc files should not affect runtime OK - add gcj support if %BuildArch nnoarch OK - verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs Ok - rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there --> warning can be ignored. X - run rpmlint on the binary RPMs --> rpmlint svnkit-1.1.2-1.fc7.i386.rpm Only this warning needs to be fixed: svnkit wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/svnkit-1.1.2/README.txt, the others I think can be ignored. --> rpmlint svnkit-debuginfo-1.1.2-1.fc7.i386.rpm This warning can be ignored. --> rpmlint svnkit-javadoc-1.1.2-1.fc7.i386.rpm There are a bunch of svnkit-javadoc wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding warnings that I think need to be fixed. OK - license text included in package and marked with %doc --> license text is not included in this package. X 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 --> I'm getting different md5sums. Could you kindly just double check this as well. OK - package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc --> See note above. OK - package should build on i386 OK - package should build on 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