Fedora Merge Review: axis http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/axis/ Initial Owner: pcheung
Updated spec file and srpm at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/362/axis.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/361/axis-1.2.1-2jpp.7.src.rpm
links point to an empty file
sorry... don't know what went wrong with the upload, fixed now, please try again.
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. - use acronyms for licences where common 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 X md5sums do not match * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * 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 * 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 rpmlint axis-1.2.1-2jpp.7.src.rpm W: axis non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java OK, the group warning can be ignored * changelog should be in a proper formats: 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 OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here OK - 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 description lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary OK, it contains javadoc and a manual sub-package * 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 OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} 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 OK * 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 * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %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 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs rpmlint axis-1.2.1-2jpp.7.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: axis non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java OK, group warnings can be ignored rpmlint axis-javadoc-1.2.1-2jpp.7.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: axis-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: axis-javadoc symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/javadoc/axis /usr/share/javadoc/axis-1.2.1 X please fix the symlink issue rpmlint axis-manual-1.2.1-2jpp.7.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: axis-manual non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: axis-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/axis-manual-1.2.1/apiDocs /usr/share/javadoc/axis W: axis-manual symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/axis-manual-1.2.1/apiDocs /usr/share/javadoc/axis X please fix the symlink issues rpmlint axis-debuginfo-1.2.1-2jpp.7.fc7.x86_64.rpm OK 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
(In reply to comment #4) > - 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 > X md5sums do not match Fixed > rpmlint axis-javadoc-1.2.1-2jpp.7.fc7.x86_64.rpm > W: axis-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > W: axis-javadoc symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/javadoc/axis > /usr/share/javadoc/axis-1.2.1 > X please fix the symlink issue I don't think the symlink can be made relative since there is macro in there. > > rpmlint axis-manual-1.2.1-2jpp.7.fc7.x86_64.rpm > W: axis-manual non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > W: axis-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/axis-manual-1.2.1/apiDocs > /usr/share/javadoc/axis > W: axis-manual symlink-should-be-relative > /usr/share/doc/axis-manual-1.2.1/apiDocs /usr/share/javadoc/axis > X please fix the symlink issues > The symlink is needed to avoid duplicate files. This symlink also includes a macro. Updated spec file and srpm at the same location.
APPROVED
Package built in brew.