Bug 235113
Summary: | Review Request: slf4j - Simple Logging Facade for Java | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nuno Santos <nsantos> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nuno Santos <nsantos> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | aortega, asimon | ||||
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: | 2008-02-07 17:31:41 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: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Nuno Santos
2007-04-03 19:54:29 UTC
Updated specfile and SRPM: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nsantos/fc7/slf4j.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nsantos/fc7/slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.fc7.src.rpm slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.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 ?? * match upstream tarball or project name ?? * try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency ---> I am not sure about those 2 points as the latest available version is 1.3.0 (see http://www.slf4j.org/dist/) NO * specfile should be %{name}.spec ---> it is named: slf4j.spec but it should be slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.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? ?? * OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware ?? * 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 ?? * 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. NO * correct buildroot should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --> it is /slf4j-1.0-rc5/lib/ NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) 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?) NO * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) --> The rpm contains unwanted directories and files: /.svn/, /test/, /TODO.txt, /src/.svn etc with .svn directories NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there --> Cannot install source packages. No packages were given for installation. 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) NO * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement --> Those fields must be changed Name: %{name} Version: %{version} Release: %{release}.1%{?dist} ?? * 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) OK - make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK - specfile written in American English OK - 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? ?? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS 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 ?? * 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 ?? * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present ?? * %clean should be present NA * %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 > ?? * match upstream tarball or project name > ?? * try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for > consistency ---> I am not sure about those 2 points as the latest available version is 1.3.0 It's OK, we're repackaging from the jpackage project (see http://mirrors.dotsrc.org/jpackage/1.7/generic/free/repodata/repoview/slf4j-0-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.html ). Agreed it's not the latest version/release, but it's the release needed to satisfy dependencies. > NO * specfile should be %{name}.spec ---> it is named: slf4j.spec but it should be slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1jpp.spec This is OK, %name refers just to the package name. No version/release should be included in the specfile name. > ?? * OSI-approved It's an X11 license, so it's OK (GPL compatible). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses > ?? * is it covered by patents? Distributed under X11 license, no explicit references to patents, so to the best of our knowledge it's OK. > ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches > do) To verify source/patches, follow instructions to obtain source and package it, then run "md5sum" against the resulting tarfile, and compare to the tarfile included in the srpm, they should match. FWIW, md5sum on the tarfile in the srpm is in the specfile: # md5sum: f34e95130cc3ae28095f31961427197d slf4j-1.0-rc5.tar.gz > NO * correct buildroot should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --> it is /slf4j-1.0-rc5/lib/ This is OK, buildroot in specfile is (see line 51): BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > NA * if %{?dist} is used dist is being used (see line 41): Release: %{release}.1%{?dist} > NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc --> included but not marked with %doc: It's marked with %doc, see line 132: %doc LICENSE.txt > NO * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) --> The rpm contains unwanted directories and files: /.svn/, /test/, /TODO.txt, /src/.svn etc with .svn directories Those are either included upstream (TODO.txt, /test) or are a result of grabbing the source from svn. They do not violate the FHS, so should be OK. > NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output --> Cannot install source packages. srpm doesn't need to be installed, just run rpmlint on it directly: $ rpmlint slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.fc7.src.rpm W: slf4j non-standard-group System/Logging W: slf4j invalid-license X11 License Warnings are OK (see license info above) > NO * specfile is legible --> Those fields must be changed > Name: %{name} > Version: %{version} > Release: %{release}.1%{?dist} Using the macros allows for name/version/release to be referred to later in the specfile. And the definitions are grouped at the top of the specfile for clarity. > ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > ?? * BuildRequires are proper You'll have to setup mock and try to build the package there, to verify that it builds. > ?? * use macros appropriately and consistently Usage is consistent to other packages that have been approved. > ?? * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps It's used e.g. in line 127: cp -pr docs/api/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ > ?? * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present defattrs present (see lines 131, 136): %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) > ?? * %clean should be present Present (see lines 77/78): %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > ?? * package should build on i386 > ?? * package should build in mock See comment above about setting up mock. FWIW, here's the provides, requires, and rpmlint for the binary rpm: $ rpm -qp slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.noarch.rpm --provides slf4j = 0:1.0-0.rc5.1 $ rpm -qp slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.noarch.rpm --requires rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpmlint slf4j-1.0-0.rc5.1.noarch.rpm W: slf4j non-standard-group System/Logging W: slf4j invalid-license X11 License OK * match upstream tarball or project name OK * try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency ---> I agree with your comment OK * specfile should be %{name}.spec ---> I agree with your comment OK * OSI-approved ---> I agree with your comment OK * is it covered by patents? ---> under X11 license OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches > do) ---> md5sum matches OK * correct buildroot should be: OK * if %{?dist} is used OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) ---> Could be nice to get rid of those unwanted directories and files: /.svn/, /test/, /TODO.txt, /src/.svn etc with .svn directories OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output OK * specfile is legible OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK * BuildRequires are proper ---> 8 warning though OK * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs OK * package should build on i386 OK * package should build in mock Created attachment 152258 [details]
guild log
This is the build log for reference
|