Bug 227111 - Review Request: qdox - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources
Review Request: qdox - Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Matt Wringe
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-02-02 12:56 EST by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:14 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-03-12 14:14:52 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
nsantos: fedora‑review+
petersen: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 12:56:03 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/qdox-1.5-2jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/qdox-1.5-2jpp.src.rpm
Description: QDox is a high speed, small footprint parser
for extracting class/interface/method definitions
from source files complete with JavaDoc @tags.
It is designed to be used by active code
generators or documentation tools.

Javadoc for qdox.
Comment 1 Permaine Cheung 2007-02-16 00:16:05 EST
X indicates items required fixing:
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 http://svn.qdox.codehaus.org/tags/QDOX_1_5/qdox
  # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
Need to specify how to get to the src tar ball, also it's now using svn instead
of cvs
* 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)
Release needs to be fixed.
* 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/)
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: qdox invalid-license Apache-style Software License
W: qdox mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 48)
 
* 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
X Vendor tag should not be used
X 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)
X specfile is legible
 - remove BuildArch: noarch when adding gcj support.
 - BR: maven should be fixed, use ant instead.
 - get rid of BR for mockmaker, jmock
* 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 $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires /home/pcheung/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
java
jpackage-utils
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides /home/pcheung/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
qdox = 0:1.5-2jpp.1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires
/home/pcheung/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides
/home/pcheung/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.noarch.rpm
qdox-javadoc = 0:1.5-2jpp.1
 
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
rpmlint on rpmbuild built on i386:
W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style
W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style
W: qdox-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: qdox-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License style
 
SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
will try this out when byaccj is available in mock.
 
spec file and srpms at:
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/226/qdox.spec
https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/227/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm
Comment 2 Permaine Cheung 2007-02-16 22:51:21 EST
Added ant-nodeps as BR.
Built successfully in mock, rpmlint on mock built rpms:
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/*rpm
W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style
W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style
W: qdox-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: qdox-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License style

[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --provides 
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm
qdox = 0:1.5-2jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --requires 
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm
java
jpackage-utils
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --provides 
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm
qdox-javadoc = 0:1.5-2jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpm -qp --requires 
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/qdox-javadoc-1.5-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

spec file and srpm updated, available at the same location.
Comment 3 Nuno Santos 2007-02-19 11:11:13 EST
marking fedora-review+


qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm

Legend:
OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify

MUST:
OK * package is named appropriately
OK - 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?
OK - OSI-approved
OK - not a kernel module
OK - not shareware
OK - is it covered by patents?
OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
OK - no binary firmware
OK * license field matches the actual license.
OK * license is open source-compatible.
OK - use acronyms for licences where common
OK* specfile name matches %{name}
OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK * correct buildroot
OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there

--
$ rpmlint qdox-1.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm
W: qdox non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: qdox invalid-license Apache Software License style
(these warnings look ok)
--

OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:
OK * Packager tag should not be used
OK * Vendor tag should not be used
OK * use License and not Copyright 
OK * Summary tag should not end in a period
NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * specfile is legible
OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK * BuildRequires are proper
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
OK * specfile written in American English
OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK * 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?
OK * use macros appropriately and consistently
OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
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
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
NA * 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

SHOULD:
OK * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
OK * package should build on i386
OK * package should build in mock
Comment 4 Matt Wringe 2007-03-06 10:51:48 EST
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: qdox
Short Description: Extract class/interface/method definitions from sources
Owners: mwringe@redhat.com
Branches: devel
InitialCC: 
Comment 5 Jens Petersen 2007-03-09 07:10:18 EST
added

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