Bug 227059

X indicates issues needed fixing.
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name - ok
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
 - 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
 - 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? yes- MIT
 - 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. - ok
* license is open source-compatible. - ok
 - use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name} - ok
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - ok
 - 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
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
X correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
Please fix Release: to 1jpp.1%{?dist}
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
license is not 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
 - W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing
But this 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.
 
* Packager tag should not be used
X Vendor tag should not be used
X 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
 - When adding gcj support, please get rid of BuildArch:      noarch
 - please fix the javadoc symlink
* 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)
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
line 127 is longer than 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
* 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
* 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
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
W: httpunit no-documentation
W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
W: httpunit-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
W: httpunit-demo no-documentation
W: httpunit-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation - ok
W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
W: httpunit-manual non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
W: httpunit-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api
/usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
W: httpunit-manual symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
 
 
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 #1)
> X indicates issues needed fixing.
> MUST:
> * package is named appropriately
>  - match upstream tarball or project name - ok
>  - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
> consistency
>  - 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
>  - 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? yes- MIT
>  - 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. - ok
> * license is open source-compatible. - ok
>  - use acronyms for licences where common
> * specfile name matches %{name} - ok
> * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches
do) - ok
>  - 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
> * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> X correct buildroot
>  - should be:
>    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
Fixed.

> X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
> locations)
> Please fix Release: to 1jpp.1%{?dist}
Fixed.

> X license text included in package and marked with %doc
> license is not marked with %doc
There's no license text included in the zip.

> * 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
>  - W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing
> But this 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.
>  
> * Packager tag should not be used
> X Vendor tag should not be used
> X Distribution tag should not be used
Got rid of these.
> * 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
>  - When adding gcj support, please get rid of BuildArch:      noarch
>  - please fix the javadoc symlink
> * 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)
> X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
> line 127 is longer than 80 characters
Fixed.

> * 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
> * 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
> * 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
> X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
> W: httpunit no-documentation
It has no doc in the main package
> W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
> W: httpunit-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
> W: httpunit-demo no-documentation
No docs in demo either.
> W: httpunit-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation - ok
> W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
> W: httpunit-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
Fixed javadoc stuff
> W: httpunit-manual non-standard-group Development/Testing - ok
> W: httpunit-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api
> /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
> W: httpunit-manual symlink-should-be-relative
> /usr/share/doc/httpunit-manual-1.6.2/api /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
>  
Don't know if there's anything that we can do about this. I've added a Requires:
javadoc for doc subpackage.
>  
> SHOULD:
> * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
> * package should build on i386
Built fine.
> * package should build in mock
> 

spec file and srpm are available at:

https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/222/httpunit.spec
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/223/httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp.1.src.rpm

Almost there:  Xs are the only things that need doing

MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
X source and patches verified
  * md5sums match
  . it would be nice to have some comments regarding why the patches are
  necessary and/or what they do
* skim the summary and description fine
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used properly
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
  . there's no license text included in the zip
* packages meet FHS
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing

-> let's make this Development/Tools just for fun

X changelog is fine except for %{?dist} in your entry - remove that
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* use License and not Copyright 
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
  . can't build until jtidy and rhino are finished
* BuildRequires are proper
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* -doc sub-package is fine
* no libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package?
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* no %makeinstall
* no locale data
* cp -p used
* no Requires(pre,post)
* package is not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
  . can't do until jtidy and rhino done
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
  . can't do until jtidy and rhino done

SHOULD:
X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
  . nope
X package should build on i386
  . can't do until jtidy and rhino done
X package should build in mock
  . can't do until jtidy and rhino done

(In reply to comment #3)
> Almost there:  Xs are the only things that need doing
> 
> MUST:
> * package is named appropriately
> * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
> * license field matches the actual license.
> * license is open source-compatible.
> * specfile name matches %{name}
> X source and patches verified
>   * md5sums match
>   . it would be nice to have some comments regarding why the patches are
comments added
>   necessary and/or what they do
> * skim the summary and description fine
> * correct buildroot
> * %{?dist} used properly
> X license text included in package and marked with %doc
>   
there's no license text included in the zip
> * packages meet FHS
> X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
> W: httpunit non-standard-group Development/Testing
> 
> -> let's make this Development/Tools just for fun
> 
Done
> X changelog is fine except for %{?dist} in your entry - remove that
Done
> * Packager tag not used
> * Vendor tag not used
> * Distribution tag not used
> * use License and not Copyright 
> * Summary tag does not end in a period
> * no PreReq
> * specfile is legible
> X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
>   . can't build until jtidy and rhino are finished
> * BuildRequires are proper
> * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
> * description expands upon summary
> * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
> * specfile written in American English
> * -doc sub-package is fine
> * no libraries
> * no rpath
> * no config files
> * not a GUI app
> * no -devel sub-package?
> * macros used appropriately and consistently
> * no %makeinstall
> * no locale data
> * cp -p used
> * no Requires(pre,post)
> * package is not relocatable
> * package contains code
> * package owns all directories and files
> * no %files duplicates
> * file permissions okay; %defattrs present
> * %clean present
> * %doc files do not affect runtime
> * not a web app


will do the rest when jtidy and rhino are ready.
> X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
>   . can't do until jtidy and rhino done
> X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
>   . can't do until jtidy and rhino done
> 
> SHOULD:
> X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
>   . nope
> X package should build on i386
>   . can't do until jtidy and rhino done
> X package should build in mock
>   . can't do until jtidy and rhino done

New spec file and srpm at
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/222/httpunit.spec
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/223/httpunit-1.6.2-1jpp.1.src.rpm

All the changes you made look good. 

I was able to build it on i386.  I ran rpmlint on the binary RPMS and got the
following output:
  W: httpunit no-documentation -
  W: httpunit-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation 
  W: httpunit-doc non-standard-group Development/Documentation 
  W: httpunit-doc dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/httpunit-doc-1.6.2/api 
/usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
  W: httpunit-doc symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/httpunit-doc-1.6.2/api /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
  W: httpunit-demo non-standard-group Development/Testing
  W: httpunit-demo no-documentation

They're all okay except for these two:
  W: httpunit-doc dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/httpunit-doc-1.6.2/api 
/usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2
  W: httpunit-doc symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/httpunit-doc-1.6.2/api /usr/share/javadoc/httpunit-1.6.2

I have also tried building on mock, but failed.  It seems that rhino is still
not ready.

Those warnings are there because this package has both a doc and a javadoc
subpackage, and the api goes into the javadoc package, hence the symlink is used
to reference to that.

(In reply to comment #7)
> Those warnings are there because this package has both a doc and a javadoc
> subpackage, and the api goes into the javadoc package, hence the symlink is used
> to reference to that.

Okay.  I was also able to build on mock.

APPROVED.

This bug should remained assigned to the reviewer, I was fixing it so I'll
reassign to tbento.
Added cc to mwringe since he needs to build it in plague.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: httpunit
Short Description: Automated web site testing toolkit
Owners: mwringe
Branches: devel