Fedora Merge Review: jakarta-commons-daemon http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/jakarta-commons-daemon/ Initial Owner: pcheung
Please review, spec file and srpm at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/277/jakarta-commons-daemon.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/278/jakarta-commons-daemon-1.0.1-6jpp.2.src.rpm
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, license field should probably remove the 2.0 due to rpmlint errors * 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. X summary should be more than just the package name * 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, jars and javadoc are being installed to the proper locations * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there rpmlint jakarta-commons-daemon-1.0.1-6jpp.2.src.rpm W: jakarta-commons-daemon non-standard-group System/Boot W: jakarta-commons-daemon invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 the 2.0 in the license can probably be removed to get rid of the warning * changelog should be in proper format OK * Packager, Vendor and 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, looks ok to me * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 Ok * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here OK, builds in mock fine - 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 * summary should be a short and concise description of the package X summary is just package name * 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, has a javadoc 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 * don't use %makeinstall * 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 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 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 OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs rpm -qp --provides jakarta-commons-daemon-1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm commons-daemon = 1:1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7 jakarta-commons-daemon-1.0.1.jar.so()(64bit) jakarta-commons-daemon = 1:1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7 rpm -qp --requires jakarta-commons-daemon-1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpm -qp --provides jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc-1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc = 1:1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7 rpm -qp --requires jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc-1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs rpmlint jakarta-commons-daemon-1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: jakarta-commons-daemon non-standard-group System/Boot W: jakarta-commons-daemon invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 X the 2.0 can probably be removed from the License field rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-mwringe/result/jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc-1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm X don't have rm in 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
(In reply to comment #2) ... > * license is open source-compatible. > - use acronyms for licences where common > OK, license field should probably remove the 2.0 due to rpmlint errors Done > X summary should be more than just the package name Fixed > * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > rpmlint jakarta-commons-daemon-1.0.1-6jpp.2.src.rpm > W: jakarta-commons-daemon non-standard-group System/Boot > W: jakarta-commons-daemon invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 > > the 2.0 in the license can probably be removed to get rid of the warning Done > * summary should be a short and concise description of the package > X summary is just package name Fixed > rpmlint jakarta-commons-daemon-1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm > W: jakarta-commons-daemon non-standard-group System/Boot > W: jakarta-commons-daemon invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 > X the 2.0 can probably be removed from the License field Done > > rpmlint > /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-mwringe/result/jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc-1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm > W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 > W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > X don't have rm in the javadoc post and postun Done New spec file checked into cvs.
looks good, Approved
Package built in brew.