Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp.src.rpm Description: This is an Internet protocol suite Java library originally developed by ORO, Inc. This version supports Finger, Whois, TFTP, Telnet, POP3, FTP, NNTP, SMTP, and some miscellaneous protocols like Time and Echo as well as BSD R command support. The purpose of the library is to provide fundamental protocol access, not higher-level abstractions. Javadoc for jakarta-commons-net. Documents for jakarta-commons-net.
spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/j-c-net/jakarta-commons-net.spec http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/j-c-net/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
I'll take this one.
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) - 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 I'm getting different md5sum for commons-build.tar.gz, the one in srpm gives: 6854865ce0272a28261d4dc575595390, the one i created from svn co gives: 673883662fdb86bd361e9876e90196e5 * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) * 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 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 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 $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs will do this when i can build this in mock. * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 Built in i386 * package should build in mock will build in mock when all BRs are there.
The md5s for the commons-build.tar.gz may differ due to different ownership/time/etc. If md5's don't match, comparison of sources is considered valid afaik. To compare sources, check out from svn, rename to commons-build.svn, then extract from commons-build.tar.gz and do: diff -cr commons-build commons-build.svn There should be no differences...
Great! Did the diff -cr on the sources, and they match. Built it in mock successfully, here's the rpmlint output on mock built rpms: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-* W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Requires and Provides: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm commons-net = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7 jakarta-commons-net = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm java jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 oro >= 2.0.7 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-javadoc-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm jakarta-commons-net-javadoc = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/jakarta-commons-net-javadoc-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 APPROVED. Reassigning to myself as I need to build it in plague.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: jakarta-commons-net Short Description: Internet protocol suite Java library Owners: pcheung Branches: InitialCC:
Package built into plague. Closing as NEXTRELEASE.