Bug 225929 - Merge Review: jakarta-commons-fileupload
Merge Review: jakarta-commons-fileupload
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: 2007-01-31 14:09 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-04-26 11:40:11 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 2007-01-31 14:09:17 EST
Fedora Merge Review: jakarta-commons-fileupload

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/jakarta-commons-fileupload/
Initial Owner: pcheung@redhat.com
Comment 2 Matt Wringe 2007-04-23 23:20:21 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, files match svn outputt
* 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 jakarta-commons-fileupload-1.0-6jpp.2.src.rpm 
W: jakarta-commons-fileupload non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

OK, group warnings can be ignored

* changelog should be in a 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
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK
* BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
Have not tried in mock yet
 - 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
X summary is basically just package name "Jakarta Commons Fileupload Package"
* 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
 - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
OK
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK
* don't use rpath
OK
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
OK, no config files
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
OK, not a gui app
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK, no -devel needed
* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
OK
* don't use %makeinstall
OK, doesn't use make
* 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
OK, no locales
* 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
X package doesn't own /usr/share/java[doc], this package needs a requirement on
jpackage-utils (owns those directories)
* 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
* 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 /home/matt/topdir/RPMS/i386/jakarta-commons-fileupload-1.0-6jpp.2.i386.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-fileupload non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: jakarta-commons-fileupload unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/gcj/jakarta-commons-fileupload/jakarta-commons-fileupload-1.0.jar.so
X please fix the unstripped-binary-or-object warning.

rpmlint
/home/matt/topdir/RPMS/i386/jakarta-commons-fileupload-javadoc-1.0-6jpp.2.i386.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-fileupload-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
OK, can ignore the group warning

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

Comment 3 Permaine Cheung 2007-04-24 14:12:34 EDT
(In reply to comment #2)
...
> * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
> X summary is basically just package name "Jakarta Commons Fileupload Package"
Fixed
...
> * package should own all directories and files
> X package doesn't own /usr/share/java[doc], this package needs a requirement on
> jpackage-utils (owns those directories)
Added
> * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
> 
> rpmlint /home/matt/topdir/RPMS/i386/jakarta-commons-fileupload-1.0-6jpp.2.i386.rpm
> W: jakarta-commons-fileupload non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> W: jakarta-commons-fileupload unstripped-binary-or-object
> /usr/lib/gcj/jakarta-commons-fileupload/jakarta-commons-fileupload-1.0.jar.so
> X please fix the unstripped-binary-or-object warning.
> 
Hm... I don't get this warning, just the group one:
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 src]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-fileupload-1.0-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm
W: jakarta-commons-fileupload non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java


Updated spec file and srpm at the same location.
Comment 4 Matt Wringe 2007-04-25 19:01:54 EDT
OK, looks good.

APPROVED
Comment 5 Permaine Cheung 2007-04-26 11:33:12 EDT
Package built into brew.

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