Bug 225637
Summary: | Merge Review: castor | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Parag AN(पराग) <panemade> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | akurtako, kevin, mat.booth, panemade, pcheung |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | panemade:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-11-28 03:54:54 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
2007-01-31 17:49:07 UTC
Updated spec file and srpm at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/379/castor.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/378/castor-0.9.5-1jpp.9.src.rpm Hey Matt. I see this review is assigned to you, but still in the NEW state with the fedora-review flag not set. Do you intent to review here? Package cannot be build this the current version of gcj in Fedora due to enum now being a reserved keyword. Please fix this by setting the source level or by patching the files. 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, look ok to me * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common OK (its BSD-style) * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK, the md5sums match * 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, looks OK to me * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output rpmlint castor-0.9.5-1jpp.9.src.rpm W: castor non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java OK (group warnings can be safely ignored) * changelog should be in a proper formats: 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 X package does not build * BuildRequires are proper ? Will check when it builds properly * 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 X Can you make line 134 multiple lines instead? * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary 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 * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently 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 OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * 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 ? Waiting until package builds properly * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs ? waiting until package builds properly SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ? * package should build on i386 ? * package should build in mock ? The latest version of the spec file is in Fedora cvs, I just tried that and it built fine. Please try that one. Same remark as Kevin, here. I guess it's an oversight, so I'm changing from NEW to ASSIGNED. I have done major revamp of the package, Matt are you interested to review it again? I too have revamped the package to confirm with modern guidelines and bootstrap the building of extra modules using castor-maven-plugin. Alexander, would you care to review? I'll try to do it soon. Suggestions from me 1) Epoch :0 not needed 2) if multiple licenses are specified in license tag then add comments which part of source is in which license 3) Group: tag is not needed anymore 4) local mock build failed for rawhide, submit working spec for further review. 5) Generally patch name should start with %{name}-%{version} against which its created. Thanks for the feedback. I have addressed all your comments in the latest rawhide build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=481142 SRPM: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/castor/1.3.2/11.fc21/noarch/castor-javadoc-1.3.2-11.fc21.noarch.rpm SPEC FILE: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/castor.git/tree/castor.spec Thanks for fixing this issue. Package is APPROVED. Closing this review as required changes are already in rawhide package. |