Bug 225306 - Merge Review: avalon-logkit
Merge Review: avalon-logkit
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Permaine Cheung
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: 2008-12-12 17:21 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-12-12 17:21:33 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
overholt: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-29 16:09:42 EST
Fedora Merge Review: avalon-logkit

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/avalon-logkit/
Comment 1 Andrew Overholt 2007-02-08 18:06:36 EST
I'll take this one.
Comment 2 Andrew Overholt 2007-02-08 19:59:53 EST
MUST:
X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output

W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

Perhaps:  System Environment/Libraries ?

* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
X package meets packaging guidelines.

. BuildRoot incorrect.  As per this:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot

it should be:

%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

. do we need section free?

* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
X specfile is legible
. do we still need the crazy gcj_support line?

X source files match upstream
. I can't find the tarball.  Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the
tar.gz.

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on
the other arches in Fedora Core presently)

X BuildRequires are proper
. are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in Requires(post{,un})?

* no locale data so no find_lang necessary
* package is not relocatable
X package owns all directories and files
. why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the
  %file section?
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
. javadoc package present
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* no desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* final provides and requires are sane

$ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm 
avalon-logkit-1.2.jar.so  
avalon-logkit = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7

$ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm 
avalon-logkit-javadoc = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7

$ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm 
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
avalon-framework >= 0:4.1.4
java-gcj-compat  
java-gcj-compat  
jdbc-stdext  
jms  
libc.so.6  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)  
libdl.so.2  
libgcc_s.so.1  
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)  
libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0)  
libgcj_bc.so.1  
libm.so.6  
libpthread.so.0  
librt.so.1  
libz.so.1  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)  
servlet  

$ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm 
/bin/ln  
/bin/rm  
/bin/rm  
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1


SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* package builds on i386
  ... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here
X package functions
  . I don't know how to test this package
X package builds in mock
  my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems
  here as the package currently builds fine in brew
Comment 3 Permaine Cheung 2007-02-09 15:28:57 EST
(In reply to comment #2)
> MUST:
> X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output
> 
> W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> 
> Perhaps:  System Environment/Libraries ?
> 

It seems acceptable to use Development/Libraries/Java as the Group field, please
see:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html

> * package is named appropriately
> * specfile name matches %{name}
> X package meets packaging guidelines.
> 
> . BuildRoot incorrect.  As per this:
> 
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot
> 
> it should be:
> 
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> 

Fixed.

> . do we need section free?
> 

Got rid of it.

> * license field matches the actual license.
> * license is open source-compatible.
> * license text included in package and marked with %doc
> * specfile written in American English
> X specfile is legible
> . do we still need the crazy gcj_support line?
> 

Yes, please see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366#c5

> X source files match upstream
> . I can't find the tarball.  Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the
> tar.gz.
> 

Fixed Source0 URL.

> * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on
> the other arches in Fedora Core presently)
> 
> X BuildRequires are proper
> . are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in Requires(post{,un})?
> 

Yes, please see:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00076.html

> * no locale data so no find_lang necessary
> * package is not relocatable
> X package owns all directories and files
> . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the
>   %file section?

Please see the second part of the following comment:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c5

> * no %files duplicates
> * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
> * %clean present
> * macro usage is consistent
> * package contains code
> * no large docs so no -doc subpackage
> . javadoc package present
> * %doc files don't affect runtime
> * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
> * no pkgconfig or header files
> * no -devel package
> * no .la files
> * no desktop file
> * not a web app.
> * file ownership fine
> * final provides and requires are sane
> 
> $ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm 
> avalon-logkit-1.2.jar.so  
> avalon-logkit = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7
> 
> $ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm 
> avalon-logkit-javadoc = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7
> 
> $ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm 
> /bin/sh  
> /bin/sh  
> avalon-framework >= 0:4.1.4
> java-gcj-compat  
> java-gcj-compat  
> jdbc-stdext  
> jms  
> libc.so.6  
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)  
> libdl.so.2  
> libgcc_s.so.1  
> libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)  
> libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0)  
> libgcj_bc.so.1  
> libm.so.6  
> libpthread.so.0  
> librt.so.1  
> libz.so.1  
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> rtld(GNU_HASH)  
> servlet  
> 
> $ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm 
> /bin/ln  
> /bin/rm  
> /bin/rm  
> /bin/sh  
> /bin/sh  
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> 
> 
> SHOULD:
> * package includes license text
> * package builds on i386
>   ... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here
> X package functions
>   . I don't know how to test this package

I've built avalon-framework (which has avalon-logkit as a BuildRequire) and it
builds fine.

> X package builds in mock
>   my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems
>   here as the package currently builds fine in brew

I did a scratch build in brew with the new spec file and it builds fine.
Comment 4 Andrew Overholt 2007-02-09 16:26:59 EST
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > MUST:
> > X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output
> > 
> > W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> > 
> > Perhaps:  System Environment/Libraries ?
> > 
> 
> It seems acceptable to use Development/Libraries/Java as the Group field, please
> see:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html

Okay.

> > X package meets packaging guidelines.
> > 
> > . BuildRoot incorrect.  As per this:
> > 
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot
> > 
> > it should be:
> > 
> > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> > 
> 
> Fixed.

Great.

> > . do we need section free?
> > 
> 
> Got rid of it.

Sweet.

> > X specfile is legible
> > . do we still need the crazy gcj_support line?
> > 
> 
> Yes, please see:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366#c5

Okay.

> > X source files match upstream
> > . I can't find the tarball.  Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the
> > tar.gz.
> > 
> 
> Fixed Source0 URL.

Great.  The md5sums now match.

> > X BuildRequires are proper
> > . are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in Requires(post{,un})?
> > 
> 
> Yes, please see:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00076.html

Yup, sounds good.

> > X package owns all directories and files
> > . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the
> >   %file section?
> 
> Please see the second part of the following comment:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c5

Okay.  I'd like to see this cleaned up but it isn't violating any rules so it's
fine.

> > SHOULD:
> > X package functions
> >   . I don't know how to test this package
> 
> I've built avalon-framework (which has avalon-logkit as a BuildRequire) and it
> builds fine.

Good.

> > X package builds in mock
> >   my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems
> >   here as the package currently builds fine in brew
> 
> I did a scratch build in brew with the new spec file and it builds fine.

Awesome.

APPROVED.  Thanks, Permaine :)

As per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c7 , please
ebuild this package in Brew and when I've confirmed that the updated package has
hit Rawhide, I'll close this bug as RAWHIDE.
Comment 5 Till Maas 2008-12-12 17:21:33 EST
It seems you forgot to close this bug.

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