Attachment 160393 Details for Bug 247513 – Detailed review

Detailed review

fedora-review-junit4.txt (text/plain), 5.41 KB, created by Vivek Lakshmanan on 2007-08-01 05:08:20 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Vivek Lakshmanan

Created: 2007-08-01 05:08:20 UTC

Size: 5.41 KB

patch

obsolete

>Legend:
>. -> OK
>! -> Conditional, see comment #
>N/A -> Not applicable
>X -> Needs fixing, see comment #
>
>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
>  # Conforms to JPackage naming guidelines as per fedora wiki
>. - 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
>
>* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
>. - not a kernel module
>. - not shareware
>. - is it covered by patents?
>. - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
>. - no binary firmware
>. * license field matches the actual license.
>. * license is open source-compatible.
>. - use acronyms for licences where common
>. * specfile name matches %{name}
>. * 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 * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
>  # The summary is outdated - references EPL which may confuse people. See patch for 
>  # fix from http://www.junit.org/index.htm
>X * correct buildroot
> - should be:
>   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> # Needs to be fixed
>.* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
>locations)
>
>X * license text included in package and marked with %doc
>  # cpl-v10.html should be included in %doc
>
>. * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?)
>. * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
>X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
>  # tab and space mixing issues: see patch
>.* Packager tag should not be used
>.* Vendor tag should not be used
>.* Distribution tag should not be used
>.* use License and not Copyright
>.* Summary tag should not end in a period
>.* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
>.* specfile is legible
>.* 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 . * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
>. * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
>instructions)
>. * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
>
>. * specfile written in American English
>. * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
>  # javadoc package exists
>. - see
>. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
>. * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
>. * 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?
>. * use macros appropriately and consistently
>. - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
>N/A * don't use %makeinstall
>. * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
>N/A - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
>   end of %install
>. * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
>. * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
>N/A * package should probably not be relocatable
>. * package contains code
>. - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
>. - in general, there should be no offensive content
>. * package should own all directories and files
>  # %{_libdir}/gcj is owned as well
>
>. * there should be no %files duplicates
>. * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
>. * %clean should be present
>. * %doc files should not affect runtime
>N/A * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
>. * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
>X * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
>XNote: group warnings can be ignored.
># Results from binary rpm rpmlint-ing
>#$ rpmlint -v /var/lib/mock/fedora-7-x86_64/root/builddir/build/RPMS/junit4-*
>#I: junit4 checking
>#W: junit4 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/junit4-4.3.1/README.html
>#I: junit4-debuginfo checking
>#I: junit4-demo checking
>#W: junit4-demo no-documentation
>#I: junit4-javadoc checking
>#I: junit4-manual checking
>#W: junit4-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/junit4-manual-4.3.1/faq/faq.htm
>#W: junit4-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/junit4-manual-4.3.1/testinfected/testing.htm
>#W: junit4-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/junit4-manual-4.3.1/index.htm
>#W: junit4-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/junit4-manual-4.3.1/cookbook/cookbook.htm
>#W: junit4-manual wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/junit4-manual-4.3.1/cookstour/cookstour.htm
>
>
>SHOULD:
>X * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
># See above, might need fixing
>. * package should build on i386
>. * package should build in mock
>
>

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 247513: 160393 | 160394