Bug 226103 - Merge Review: log4j
Merge Review: log4j
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Alexander Kurtakov
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 14:34 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2010-05-28 04:13 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-05-28 04:13:56 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
akurtako: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 14:34:52 EST
Fedora Merge Review: log4j

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/log4j/
Initial Owner: vivekl@redhat.com
Comment 1 Alexander Kurtakov 2010-05-26 13:12:37 EDT
Stanislav, 
I would like if we can finish this review.
Comment 2 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-05-27 05:21:27 EDT
Correct, I should have checked if there are any merge reviews pending when I was taking over log4j...
Comment 3 Alexander Kurtakov 2010-05-27 16:34:43 EDT
Review:

FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
log4j.spec:358: W: macro-in-%changelog %{name}


OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. 
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. 
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. 
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. 
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. 
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

FIXIT: Maven depmap and poms are not installed
FIXIT: Javadoc package is missing Requires:       jpackage-utils
Comment 4 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-05-28 04:06:02 EDT
Fixed those problems in log4j-1.2.16-2 in rawhide
Comment 5 Alexander Kurtakov 2010-05-28 04:10:05 EDT
Thanks,

Package is APPROVED.

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