Bug 229416 - Review Request: qpidj - qpid java implementation
Review Request: qpidj - qpid java implementation
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nuno Santos
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-02-20 16:58 EST by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:14 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-09-27 14:14:16 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-20 16:58:53 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/qpidj.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/srpms/qpidj-0.1-4rhm.src.rpm
Description: Apache Qpid's java implementation of AMQP.
Comment 1 Nuno Santos 2007-02-20 17:26:45 EST

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

OK * package is named appropriately
OK - match upstream tarball or project name
OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec
OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
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 * 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.
NO * correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

BuildRoot:      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot

NO * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %

dist not used

NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc

included but not marked with %doc

OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there

$ rpmlint qpidj-0.1-4rhm.src.rpm 
W: qpidj summary-ended-with-dot Java implementation of Apache Qpid.
W: qpidj non-standard-group Development/Java
W: qpidj mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 3)
W: qpidj class-path-in-manifest /jmscts-0.5-b2.jar

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 
NO * Summary tag should not end in a period

Summary:        Java implementation of Apache Qpid.

OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * specfile is legible
?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
?? * BuildRequires are proper
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
NO * description expands upon summary (don't include installation

description == summary

NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters

a number of lines are longer than 80 chars

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
NO * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)

not marked with (noreplace):
%config %{_datadir}/%{name}/etc/*

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)
NA * 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
?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs

NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc

included but not marked with %doc

?? * package should build on i386
?? * package should build in mock
Comment 2 Xavier Lamien 2007-06-18 21:00:38 EDT
since last comment this bug didn't have any reponse from the reporter so far.
If no changes happened, i'll close this bug within a week.

Nuno, As you started review this pacakge please, set the flag 'fedora-review' to
? and remove the block FE-NEW.

Comment 3 Nuno Santos 2007-06-19 10:05:17 EDT
This package is stalled due to unresolved packaging dependencies.
Setting fedora-review=?, removing block.
Comment 4 Xavier Lamien 2007-08-05 15:13:28 EDT
those unresolved packages dependencie's bugs should be paste in dependencies
block below.
That's avoid confusion for any reviewer.
Comment 5 Nuno Santos 2007-09-27 14:14:16 EDT
I'm closing the review request, this will be repackaged differently at a later
time to solve some of the issues mentioned above.

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