Bug 225305 - Merge Review: avalon-framework
Merge Review: avalon-framework
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Matt Wringe
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-29 16:09 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-04-23 22:27:08 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mwringe: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-29 16:09:39 EST
Fedora Merge Review: avalon-framework

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/avalon-framework/
Comment 2 Matt Wringe 2007-03-16 10:44:08 EDT
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
OK

* 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
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)
 - 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, md5sums match

* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK, Looks good to me

* 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)
OK, must be present since a jpp package

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK, LICENSE.txt and README.txt present, not entirely sure why KEYS (gpg keys)
are present

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK

* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK, installs jars, javadocs and files into proper locations

* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there

rpmlint avalon-framework-4.1.4-2jpp.14.fc7.src.rpm
W: avalon-framework non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Application Frameworks

This group warning can be ignored

* changelog should be in proper format
OK

* Packager tag should not be used
OK
* Vendor tag should not be used
OK
* Distribution tag should not be used
OK
* use License and not Copyright 
OK
* Summary tag should not end in a period
OK
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK
* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
OK, looks good to me
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK
* 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
X sed is listed as a BR
   tar
   unzip
   which
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
Looks good to me

* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
Looks good to me

* make sure description 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
OK, contains a javadoc and manual sub-projects

* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK
* don't use rpath
OK
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
I don't believe it contains any conf files
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
OK, Not a gui app
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK, I don't believe it should
* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
OK
* don't use %makeinstall
OK
* 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
OK
* 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
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
OK
* 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

rpmlint avalon-framework-4.1.4-2jpp.14.i386.rpm
W: avalon-framework non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Application Frameworks
W: avalon-framework incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:4.1.4-2jpp.14.fc7
0:4.1.4-2jpp.14
X the change log probably shouldn't hardcode the dist (I don't think including
the dist in the change log is even needed)

rpmlint avalon-framework-manual-4.1.4-2jpp.14.i386.rpm
W: avalon-framework-manual non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Application
Frameworks
OK (can ignore group warnings)

rpmlint avalon-framework-javadoc-4.1.4-2jpp.14.i386.rpm
W: avalon-framework-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: avalon-framework-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
W: avalon-framework-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
X please remove rm from the javadoc post and postun

SHOULD:
* 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
OK
Comment 3 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-16 12:03:33 EDT
(In reply to comment #2)
...
>    sed
> X sed is listed as a BR

Got rid of it

> * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> 
> rpmlint avalon-framework-4.1.4-2jpp.14.i386.rpm
> W: avalon-framework non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Application
Frameworks
> W: avalon-framework incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:4.1.4-2jpp.14.fc7
> 0:4.1.4-2jpp.14
> X the change log probably shouldn't hardcode the dist (I don't think including
> the dist in the change log is even needed)
Done

> rpmlint avalon-framework-javadoc-4.1.4-2jpp.14.i386.rpm
> W: avalon-framework-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
> W: avalon-framework-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
> W: avalon-framework-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
> X please remove rm from the javadoc post and postun
Done

Changes had been committed into cvs.
Comment 4 Matt Wringe 2007-03-16 15:57:24 EDT
Approved
Comment 5 Permaine Cheung 2007-04-17 09:36:04 EDT
Package built into brew.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.