Bug 226326

Updated Files:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/345/puretls.spec
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/346/puretls-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.src.rpm

Please fix item(s) mared by X:
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
* 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
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
Please specify URL/instructions for the Source0 src tar ball.
X skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
Do we need to mention the company in the description?
* correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
W: puretls non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
This is OK
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
 
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.
 
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.
 
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating>
  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.
 
* 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)
X specfile is legible
 - Please get rid of the section
 - Isn't the pre-release tag 0.1.%{beta}.5jpp.1%{?dist}? (note the .1 after 0)
* 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
 - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* 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
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
please use cp -p on line 139
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
puretls1.4-0.9.b5.jar.so()(64bit)
puretls = 0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
cryptix
cryptix-asn1
java-gcj-compat
java-gcj-compat
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-debuginfo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
puretls-demo.jar.so.debug()(64bit)
puretls1.4-0.9.b5.jar.so.debug()(64bit)
puretls-debuginfo = 0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-debuginfo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-demo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
puretls-demo.jar.so()(64bit)
puretls-demo = 0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-demo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
/usr/bin/perl
java-gcj-compat
java-gcj-compat
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
perl(getopts.pl)
puretls
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-javadoc-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
puretls-javadoc = 0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-javadoc-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
 
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: puretls non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-debuginfo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-demo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: puretls-demo non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: puretls-demo no-documentation
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-javadoc-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: puretls-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
The groups ones are OK, does the demo subpackage has any doc?
 
 
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
 

(In reply to comment #2)
> 
> X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
> Please specify URL/instructions for the Source0 src tar ball.
> X skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> Do we need to mention the company in the description?
Fixed, having the company information in there doesn't really give anything to
the description.

> * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
> X specfile is legible
>  - Please get rid of the section
>  - Isn't the pre-release tag 0.1.%{beta}.5jpp.1%{?dist}? (note the .1 after 0)
Oh, good catch, this has been fixed

> X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
> please use cp -p on line 139
Done

> X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> W: puretls non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-debuginfo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-demo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> W: puretls-demo non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> W: puretls-demo no-documentation
> [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-javadoc-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> W: puretls-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> The groups ones are OK, does the demo subpackage has any doc?
The demo package depends on the main package which contains all the licensing
doc information. The actual docs for how to use the demo package is in the
INSTALL file (which for obvious reasons should not be included). I have created
a new README file from INSTALL that explains how to use the demo.


New SRPM:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/346/puretls-0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > 
> > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
> > Please specify URL/instructions for the Source0 src tar ball.
md5sum matches with upstream.
> > X skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> > Do we need to mention the company in the description?
> Fixed, having the company information in there doesn't really give anything to
> the description.
> 
OK.
> > * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
> > X specfile is legible
> >  - Please get rid of the section
> >  - Isn't the pre-release tag 0.1.%{beta}.5jpp.1%{?dist}? (note the .1 after 0)
> Oh, good catch, this has been fixed
Great!
> > X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
> > please use cp -p on line 139
> Done
> 
> > X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
> >
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> > W: puretls non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
> >
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-debuginfo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
> >
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-demo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> > W: puretls-demo non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> > W: puretls-demo no-documentation
> > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
> >
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-javadoc-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> > W: puretls-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> > The groups ones are OK, does the demo subpackage has any doc?
> The demo package depends on the main package which contains all the licensing
> doc information. The actual docs for how to use the demo package is in the
> INSTALL file (which for obvious reasons should not be included). I have created
> a new README file from INSTALL that explains how to use the demo.
Please mark it as %doc.
> 
> 
> New SRPM:
>
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/346/puretls-0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.src.rpm

[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: puretls non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: puretls incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1 0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.fc7

Please fix the incoherent version in changelog warning.

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > (In reply to comment #2)
> > > 
> > > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the
patches do)
> > > Please specify URL/instructions for the Source0 src tar ball.
> md5sum matches with upstream.
> > > X skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> > > Do we need to mention the company in the description?
> > Fixed, having the company information in there doesn't really give anything to
> > the description.
> > 
> OK.
> > > * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
> > > X specfile is legible
> > >  - Please get rid of the section
> > >  - Isn't the pre-release tag 0.1.%{beta}.5jpp.1%{?dist}? (note the .1 after 0)
> > Oh, good catch, this has been fixed
> Great!
> > > X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
> > > please use cp -p on line 139
> > Done
> > 
> > > X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> > > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
> > >
> >
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> > > W: puretls non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> > > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
> > >
> >
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-debuginfo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> > > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
> > >
> >
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-demo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> > > W: puretls-demo non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> > > W: puretls-demo no-documentation
> > > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
> > >
> >
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-javadoc-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> > > W: puretls-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> > > The groups ones are OK, does the demo subpackage has any doc?
> > The demo package depends on the main package which contains all the licensing
> > doc information. The actual docs for how to use the demo package is in the
> > INSTALL file (which for obvious reasons should not be included). I have created
> > a new README file from INSTALL that explains how to use the demo.
> Please mark it as %doc.
done
> > 
> > New SRPM:
> >
>
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/346/puretls-0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.src.rpm
> 
> [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpmlint
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> W: puretls non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> W: puretls incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1 0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.fc7
> 
> Please fix the incoherent version in changelog warning.
Fixed

New srpm:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/346/puretls-0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.src.rpm

APPROVED.

Build into Brew