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: sat4j - A library of SAT solvers written in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453781 dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-07-14 14:39 EST ------- Items with issues are prefixed with an "X:" MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.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 N/A - 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 N/A - don't use non-Latin, non-numeric, non-"-,.,_,+" characters in the name OK http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines * 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 * no pre-built binaries (except for bootstrapping) X: jmock jar exists in both SOURCE files, and the spec file doesn't try to remove it. Since jmock is used only for testing, this is probably okay. But please keep the file only if the tests actually use it.. * 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 N/A * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - MUST be below %{_tmppath}/ and MUST contain at least %{name}, %{version} and %{release} - should be (in descending order of preference: %(mktemp -ud %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-XXXXXX) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root 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 (no license text in tarballs) * 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 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there OK (one warning re: no-documentation, acceptable in this case) * 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 * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) N/A * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper 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 N/A * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible N/A * don't use rpath N/A * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) N/A * GUI apps should contain .desktop files N/A * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK (no) * 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 N/A * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines N/A * package should probably not be relocatable N/A * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content N/A * 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 N/A * if it is a web app, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www N/A * no files can be under /srv OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs N/A * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs OK (see above for warning re: no documentation, waived off) SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc N/A * package should build on i386 OK Additional notes: 1. Consider adding descriptions to patches, if possible 2. There are significant test failures during build.. is this expected? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review