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: bsf https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225627 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-06 17:26 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > 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. > 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 > X link for Source0 is dead, and the version for the project does not exist on > the project's webpage. The project is at 2.4 currently and there's no archive of old sources. I asked on their mailing list about a 2.3 source tar ball, but people on the mailing list were not sure where 2.3 source tar ball can be fetched from. > * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. > * 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 > X do not include the install or build instructions Done > * 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 bsf-2.3.0-11jpp.2.src.rpm > W: bsf non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > OK, group warnings can be ignored > > * changelog should be in a 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 > - this is largely subjective; use your judgement > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > OK > * BuildRequires are proper > - builds in mock will flush out problems here > Have not yet built in mock > - 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 > - see > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b > OK > * 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 > OK, not a gui app > * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? > OK, it shouldn't have one > * 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 > 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 > X package needs to require jpackage-utils as this package owns /usr/share/java[doc] Done > * there should be no %files duplicates > X please get rid of the %ghost javadoc Done > > * 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 /home/matt/topdir/RPMS/i386/bsf-2.3.0-11jpp.2.i386.rpm > W: bsf non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > W: bsf unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/gcj/bsf/bsf-2.3.0.jar.so > > rpmlint /home/matt/topdir/RPMS/i386/bsf-javadoc-2.3.0-11jpp.2.i386.rpm > W: bsf-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > OK, group warnings can be ignored > > > 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 > > New spec file in cvs. -- 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