Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.src.rpm Description: Jar Jar Links is a utility that makes it easy to repackage Java libraries and embed them into your own distribution. This is useful for two reasons: You can easily ship a single jar file with no external dependencies. You can avoid problems where your library depends on a specific version of a library, which may conflict with the dependencies of another library. Javadoc for jarjar. Manual for jarjar.
Packages marked with X need fixing. MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - 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 GPL - OK - not a kernel module It isn't - not shareware It isn't - is it covered by patents? No - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator It isn't - no binary firmware No * license field matches the actual license. Yes * license is open source-compatible. Yes - use acronyms for licences where common Used * specfile name matches %{name} Yes * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) No patches X - 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 Needs instructions X * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. Can the summary be made more descriptive? X * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Needs fixing. X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) %{?dist} should be used * license text included in package and marked with %doc No license in package. OK. * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there W: jarjar non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: jarjar-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: jarjar-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jarjar-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm W: jarjar non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML * 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. OK X * Distributor tag should not be used Fix X * Vendor tag should not be used Fix * use License and not Copyright OK X * Summary tag should not end in a period OK (Summary needs changing, so please be sure to follow this then) * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK X * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK with help from jpackage. Please build in mock when dependencies are done. X * 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 Build in mock to confirm. X * summary should be a short and concise description of the package Summary needs update. See above. * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters Line 8 in %install is too long. * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible NA * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? No * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * 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 OK * 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 OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs OK SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc No. Package tarball does not have it. X * package should build on i386 No X * package should build in mock No $ rpm -qp --provides ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm jarjar = 0:0.6-2jpp $ rpm -qp --requires ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm asm2 gnu.regexp rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpm -qp --provides ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-javadoc-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm jarjar-javadoc = 0:0.6-2jpp $ rpm -qp --requires ~/rpmbuilds/RPMS/noarch/jarjar-javadoc-0.6-2jpp.noarch.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Revised spec file is here: http://people.redhat.com/nsantos/jarjar.spec
Release tag has %(dist) in place of %{dist} RPMLint report : W: jarjar non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: jarjar mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 83) Mock can't find asm2
This bug should actually be closed. jarjar was being brought in as an indirect dependency of maven. However, in the interest of time, that was worked around by disabling a test case back then. Since this was never followed up, review for jarjar should be re-opened/redone when those tests are re-enabled in maven.
Please keep the blockers accurate when closing review tickets like this, thanks.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 532523 ***