Bug 227111
Summary: | Review Request: qdox - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources | ||
---|---|---|---|
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+
petersen: 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 18:14:52 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 17:56:03 UTC
X indicates items required fixing: 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) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export http://svn.qdox.codehaus.org/tags/QDOX_1_5/qdox # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah Need to specify how to get to the src tar ball, also it's now using svn instead of cvs * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * 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) Release needs to be fixed. * 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/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache-style Software License W: qdox mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 48) * 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) X specfile is legible - remove BuildArch: noarch when adding gcj support. - BR: maven should be fixed, use ant instead. - get rid of BR for mockmaker, jmock * 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 $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm java jpackage-utils rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm qdox = 0:1.5-2jpp.1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm qdox-javadoc = 0:1.5-2jpp.1 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs rpmlint on rpmbuild built on i386: W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style W: qdox-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: qdox-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License style SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock will try this out when byaccj is available in mock. spec file and srpms at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/226/qdox.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/227/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm Added ant-nodeps as BR. Built successfully in mock, rpmlint on mock built rpms: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/*rpm W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style W: qdox-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: qdox-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License style [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm qdox = 0:1.5-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm java jpackage-utils 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/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm qdox-javadoc = 0:1.5-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 spec file and srpm updated, available at the same location. marking fedora-review+ qdox-1.5-2jpp.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} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot 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 * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style (these warnings look ok) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: 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 OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper OK * 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 OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary 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? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code 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 OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: OK * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: qdox Short Description: Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources Owners: mwringe Branches: devel InitialCC: added |