Bug 227100 - Review Request: plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp - Plexus Compiler
Review Request: plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp - Plexus Compiler
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Tania Bento
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-02-02 12:51 EST by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:14 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: 1.5.2
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-06-08 14:19:59 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tbento: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 12:51:20 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp.src.rpm
Description: Plexus Compiler components.

Javadoc for plexus-compiler.
Comment 2 Tania Bento 2007-03-09 13:46:16 EST
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
 OK

* license field matches the actual license.
 OK

* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
 OK

* specfile name matches %{name}
 OK

* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
 OK

* correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 OK

* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
 OK

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?) 
 OK

* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) 
 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.
 OK

* Packager tag should not be used
 OK

* Vendor tag should not be used
 OK
 
* Distribution tag should not be used
 OK

* use License and not Copyright 
 OK

* Summary tag should not end in a period
 OK

* post and postun javadoc should not exist
 OK

* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
 OK

* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
 OK

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86i
 OK

* BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 OK 

* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
 OK

* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
 Description is vague, but I think this is OK.

X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
 Some lines have more than 80 characters.

* specfile written in American English
 OK

* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
 OK

* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
 OK

* don't use rpath
 OK

* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
 OK

* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
 OK

* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
 OK

* 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

* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
 OK

* %clean should be present
 OK

* %doc files should not affect runtime
 OK

* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
 OK

X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
 W: plexus-compiler non-standard-group Development/Java - OK

X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
 W: plexus-compiler non-standard-group Development/Java - OK
 W: plexus-compiler no-documentation - OK

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
 Not applicable.

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
 Missing tar instruction:
  tar czf plexus-compiler-src.tar.gz plexus-compiler-1.5.2/

SHOULD:

* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
 Not applicable (see above).

* package should build on i386
 OK

X package should build on mock
 Should be built on mock once gcj support is added.

A couple of other things:
 - gcj support option be added.
 - "%define section free" could be removed.
Comment 3 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-09 19:42:45 EST
New spec and srpm:
http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-compiler/plexus-compiler.spec
http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-compiler/plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm


Some of the lines couldn't be broken down because they are file paths.
Everything else has been reduced to <= 80

I also added a comment on how to generate the tarball
Comment 4 Tania Bento 2007-03-13 13:18:12 EDT
> Some of the lines couldn't be broken down because they are file paths.
> Everything else has been reduced to <= 80
> 
> I also added a comment on how to generate the tarball

Okay.  But I think you may have forgotten to add gcj support and remove the
"%define section free" line.
Comment 5 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-13 16:38:18 EDT
I removed the fress section and updated the summary and description to better
put what the rpm does.

New spec and srpm:
http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-compiler/plexus-compiler.spec
http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-compiler/plexus-compiler-1.5.2-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
Comment 6 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-13 16:43:51 EDT
Forgot to mention:

Since gcj support is optional for now, I am not putting it in in the interest of
time. It we done at a later point in time.
Comment 7 Tania Bento 2007-03-14 10:40:56 EDT
Approved.
Comment 8 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-14 10:42:36 EDT
Please set fedora-review+
Comment 9 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-14 11:00:36 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: plexus-compiler
Short Description: Compiler call initiators for Plexus
Owners: dbhole@redhat.com
Branches: devel
Comment 10 Tania Bento 2007-06-08 14:19:59 EDT
Closing bug.

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