Bug 227042

MUST:

X 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
--> Changed %Release to 2jpp.1%{?dist}.

* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
 - OSI-approved
--> Okay.

X license field matches the actual license.
--> The %License tag is currently GPL.  However, on their website
(http://byaccj.sourceforge.net/) it states that it has no license.  The jpackage
website (http://www.jpackage.org/browser/rpm.php?jppversion=1.7&id=27) states
that it is GPL, but on the SourceForge website
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/byaccj), it states that it is Public Domain. 
There is no LICENSE.txt file (or anything along those lines) included in the
package, so I presume its license is Public Doman, so I changed it to Public
Domain.  What do you think???

* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
--> Okay.

* specfile name matches %{name}
--> Okay.

* 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
--> Okay.

* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
--> Okay.

X correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
--> Fixed.

* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
--> Okay.

X license text included in package and marked with %doc
--> License text is not included (not sure what the license is - see above). 
Does the license text need to be included?

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)

* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
--> Okay.

X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
--> W: byaccj non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
(This warning can be ignored.)

* 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.
--> Okay.

* Packager tag should not be used
--> Okay.

X Vendor tag should not be used
--> Removed.

X Distribution tag should not be used
--> Removed.

* use License and not Copyright 
--> Okay

* Summary tag should not end in a period
--> Okay

* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
--> Okay.

* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
--> Okay.

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
--> Okay.

X BuildRequires are proper
i - 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
--> gcc and make were both listed as BuildRequires, so I removed them.

* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
--> Okay.

X description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
--> The description mentions a new flag "-J".  I left it, but should that
sentence be left in???

* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
--> Okay.

* specfile written in American English
--> Okay.

* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
--> Okay.

* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
--> Okay.

* don't use rpath
--> Okay.

* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
--> Okay.

* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
--> Okay.

* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
--> Okay.

* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
--> Okay.

* don't use %makeinstall
--> Okay.

* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
--> Okay.

* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
--> Okay.

* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
--> Okay.

* package should probably not be relocatable
--> Okay.

* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
--> Okay.

* package should own all directories and files
--> Okay.

* there should be no %files duplicates
--> Okay.

* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
--> Okay.

* %clean should be present
--> Okay.

* %doc files should not affect runtime
--> Okay.

* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
--> Okay.

X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
--> rpm -qp --provides /home/tbento/reviews/byaccj/RPMS/i386/* :

    byaccj = 0:1.11-2jpp.1
    byaccj-debuginfo = 0:1.11-2jpp.1
--> rpm -qp --provides /home/tbento/reviews/byaccj/RPMS/i386/*:

    byaccj = 0:1.11-2jpp.1
    byaccj-debuginfo = 0:1.11-2jpp.1

X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
--> rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/byaccj-1.11-2jpp.1.i386.rpm:
    W: byaccj non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
    --> This warning can be ignored.
    W: byaccj wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/byaccj-1.11/tf.y
    --> This has been fixed.

SHOULD:

X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
--> See above.

* package should build on i386
--> Okay.

I also removed the "%define section free".

The spec file and source rpm can be found at the following URL:
http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/byaccj/

Thanks

Please add URL of Source0.
Please change Group to Development/Libraries.
License is fine as this is specified in their readme.
The file src/readme should be specified as %doc (it has the license info).

Everything else is fine.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Please add URL of Source0.
Fixed.

> Please change Group to Development/Libraries.
Fixed.

> The file src/readme should be specified as %doc (it has the license info).
Fixed.

The source rpm and spec file can be found here:
http://www.overholt.ca/fedora/

Thanks.
 

Approved.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: byaccj
Short Description: Parser Generator with Java Extension
Owners: vivekl
Branches: devel
InitialCC: vivekl,dbhole