Bug 225947 - Merge Review: jlex
Merge Review: jlex
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Stanislav Ochotnicky
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-01-31 14:12 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2011-03-08 05:21 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2011-03-08 05:21:44 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
sochotni: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 14:12:44 EST
Fedora Merge Review: jlex

Initial Owner: vivekl@redhat.com
Comment 1 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-03-08 02:26:26 EST
I'll do the review, akurtakov will do the fixing.
Comment 2 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-03-08 03:55:56 EST
Package Review

- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

[! ]  Rpmlint output:
jlex.noarch: W: no-documentation
One java file so it's uderstandable but directory

contains both manual and sample .lex file. I'd suggest adding these to the distribution

jlex-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[!]  Buildroot definition is not present
Better remove it

[X]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4].
[X]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: BSD
[-]  If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[-]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[X]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    : fe0cff5db3e2f0f5d67a153cf6c783af
[X]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
remove clean section and rm -rf 

[!]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing)
pick one of them
[X]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[X]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[X]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage
[X]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[X]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[X]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-]  Package uses %global not %define
[-]  If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-]  If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building
[X]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant
[-]  pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly)

=== Other suggestions ===
[X]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[X]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[X]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[X]  Latest version is packaged.
[X]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

=== Issues ===
1. documentation (manual, sample)
2. buildroot present
3. clean section and rm -rf in %install
4. macro mixing
Comment 3 Alexander Kurtakov 2011-03-08 04:39:52 EST
All fixed. 
Comment 4 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-03-08 05:21:44 EST
All good now. closing

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