Bug 227101
Summary: | Review Request: plexus-container-default-1.0-0.a8.2jpp - Default Plexus Container | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rafael H. Schloming <rafaels> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matt Wringe <mwringe> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | tross |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | nsantos:
fedora-review+
dennis: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-03-12 21:43:44 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
Rafael H. Schloming
2007-02-02 17:51:54 UTC
Updated spec and SRPM (alpha-10-stable): http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - 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 OK - 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? OK - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * 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 OK * 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) NO * 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/) NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-container-default invalid-license Apache Software License and MIT -- 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. OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement ?? * 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 OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters -- line 6 in %install is too long -- OK * specfile written in American English NA * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? NO * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- ... %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT # jars install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/plexus ... -- OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * 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 ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock Review update: OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) Updated spec and SRPM: http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm (In reply to comment #2) > NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc It's unfortunately not included so this must be ignored. > NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > > -- > $ rpmlint plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.src.rpm > W: plexus-container-default invalid-license Apache Software License and MIT It's actually both so I can't see any way around it. > ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters > > -- > line 6 in %install is too long > -- Fixed. > NO * use macros appropriately and consistently > - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS I think that's fine. All looks good, marking fedora-review+ I uploaded the SRPM I built in mock. Here are the final ones just for posterify: http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a10.1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: plexus-container-default Short Description: Default Plexus Container Owners: mwringe Branches: InitialCC: Branched plexus-appserver does not build with the new container. I reverted it to 1.0 alpha8. All of Andrew's changes have been preserved, except that the version was rolled back. Please use this spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-container-default/plexus-container-default.spec http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-container-default/plexus-container-default-1.0-0.1.a8.1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm |