Bug 229416
Summary: | Review Request: qpidj - qpid java implementation | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rafael H. Schloming <rafaels> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nuno Santos <nsantos> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | aortega, lxtnow, tross |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2007-09-27 18:14:16 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
2007-02-20 21:58:53 UTC
qpidj-0.1-4rhm.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 * 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. NO * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot -- NO * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) -- dist not used -- NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc -- included but not 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 qpidj-0.1-4rhm.src.rpm W: qpidj summary-ended-with-dot Java implementation of Apache Qpid. W: qpidj non-standard-group Development/Java W: qpidj mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 3) W: qpidj class-path-in-manifest /jmscts-0.5-b2.jar -- 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 NO * Summary tag should not end in a period -- Summary: Java implementation of Apache Qpid. -- OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package NO * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) -- description == summary -- NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters -- a number of lines are longer than 80 chars -- 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 NO * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) -- not marked with (noreplace): %config %{_datadir}/%{name}/etc/* -- 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) NA * 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 ?? * 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 -- included but not marked with %doc -- ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock since last comment this bug didn't have any reponse from the reporter so far. If no changes happened, i'll close this bug within a week. Nuno, As you started review this pacakge please, set the flag 'fedora-review' to ? and remove the block FE-NEW. thanks This package is stalled due to unresolved packaging dependencies. Setting fedora-review=?, removing block. those unresolved packages dependencie's bugs should be paste in dependencies block below. That's avoid confusion for any reviewer. I'm closing the review request, this will be repackaged differently at a later time to solve some of the issues mentioned above. |