Bug 226565 - Merge Review: xmlrpc
Merge Review: xmlrpc
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Permaine Cheung
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 16:20 EST by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-07-09 11:41:25 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
pcheung: fedora‑review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 16:20:35 EST
Fedora Merge Review: xmlrpc

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/xmlrpc/
Initial Owner: vivekl@redhat.com
Comment 2 Permaine Cheung 2007-04-19 13:37:32 EDT
Please fix item(s) mared by X:
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
* 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
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
 - Source0 doesn't exist
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
 - Please fix Release tag by adding %{?dist}
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - W: xmlrpc non-standard-group Development/Java - this is OK
* changelog should be in one of these formats:

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com>
  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

* Packager tag should not be used
* Vendor tag should not be used
* Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 - 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
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* 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
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xmlrpc-2.0.1-3jpp.3.x86_64.rpm
xmlrpc-applet-2.0.1.jar.so()(64bit)
xmlrpc = 0:2.0.1-3jpp.3
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xmlrpc-2.0.1-3jpp.3.x86_64.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
jakarta-commons-codec >= 1.3
jakarta-commons-httpclient
java-gcj-compat
java-gcj-compat
jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6
jsse
junit
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
rtld(GNU_HASH)
servletapi5
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xmlrpc-debuginfo-2.0.1-3jpp.3.x86_64.rpm
xmlrpc-applet-2.0.1.jar.so.debug()(64bit)
xmlrpc-debuginfo = 0:2.0.1-3jpp.3
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xmlrpc-debuginfo-2.0.1-3jpp.3.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --provides
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xmlrpc-javadoc-2.0.1-3jpp.3.x86_64.rpm
xmlrpc-javadoc = 0:2.0.1-3jpp.3
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpm -qp --requires
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xmlrpc-javadoc-2.0.1-3jpp.3.x86_64.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 pcheung]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xmlrpc-*x86*rpm
W: xmlrpc non-standard-group Development/Java
W: xmlrpc-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Java
These are OK

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
Comment 3 Matt Wringe 2007-04-25 19:08:43 EDT
(In reply to comment #2)

> X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
>  - Source0 doesn't exist
Updated link

> * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> * correct buildroot
>  - should be:
>    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
> locations)
>  - Please fix Release tag by adding %{?dist}
Fixed

Updated SRPM:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/348/xmlrpc-2.0.1-3jpp.3.src.rpm
Comment 4 Permaine Cheung 2007-04-26 14:37:19 EDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> 
> > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
> >  - Source0 doesn't exist
> Updated link
md5sum matches

> 
> > * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> > * correct buildroot
> >  - should be:
> >    %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> > X if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
> > locations)
> >  - Please fix Release tag by adding %{?dist}
> Fixed
> 
Great!
> Updated SRPM:
> https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/348/xmlrpc-2.0.1-3jpp.3.src.rpm

Just built in mock again, everything looks good.

APPROVED.
Comment 5 Matt Wringe 2007-04-26 15:05:43 EDT
built in rawhide

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